What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge?

The present paper aims to elucidate under what conditions victims of injustice who seek revenge feel satisfied and perceive that everybody got what he or she deserved. Two hypotheses are discussed: The comparative suffering hypothesis states that seeing the offender suffer from fate is sufficient for evoking satisfaction and perceptions of deservingness among victims. The understanding hypothesis states that revenge can only be satisfactory when the offender understands it as a response to his or her prior behavior. These hypotheses were tested in three experimental studies. The comparative suffering hypothesis received only weak support. The understanding hypothesis, on the other hand, received much stronger support: When the offender understood revenge as punishment, revenge led to satisfaction and deservingness among victims. These findings are discussed with regard to the question why people take revenge. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Learning to tell apples from oranges

Recognizing images requires sorting them into the correct perceptual categories. Without categories, apples could not be discriminated from oranges. A fundamental question is whether categories are innate or learned, and if learned, how well such discriminations generalize. A recent finding by Notman et al. demonstrates that certain categorical discriminations are learned fast but vanish for slightly rotated stimuli. Rather than higher "cognitive" learning, this indicates involvement of "early" mechanisms, which cannot generalize across different stimulus orientations.     

Synergistic person x situation interaction in distributive justice behavior

A person x situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals' justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.     

Cognitive Performance in Adults’ Daily Lives: Is There a Lab-Life Gap?

This article addresses the “lab-life gap” in cognitive aging research as an important issue of ecological validity in developmental research. Older adults often function competently in complex everyday situations despite age-related deficits on laboratory-based cognitive tasks. Therefore, to what extent do lab-based cognitive tasks predict real-life outcomes in older adults? Our review shows that although they are similar, measures of everyday cognitive competence predict relevant outcomes beyond basic measures. We provide our perspective on critical questions concerning the relevance of everyday cognitive tests in our ever-changing world, new methods of everyday cognitive assessment, and whether everyday cognition can be improved.     

Religious Knowledge and Its Use in Psychiatry

Clinicians' knowledge of and sensitivity to religious issues have been questioned. The present study measures religious knowledge and willingness to utilize such knowledge in clinical practice. We administered a 41-item questionnaire testing religious knowledge and willingness to utilize such knowledge to 28 psychiatric clinicians. The mean religious knowledge score was 61% of the total possible score. In spite of low scores, only 33% of clinicians consistently refrained from initiating discussions of religious issues. Results support a low level of religious knowledge but do not support a contention that clinicians are insensitive to religious issues.     

On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Modern Masters of Invention Have to Tell Us About the "Ars Inveniendi"

This paper deals with what has been called "ars inveniendi" (art of finding) in antiquity, medieval and early modern times. A survey of different techniques of finding tenable and relevant arguments is presented (among them, the Topical tradition, Status theory, Debate theory, Encyclopedic systems, Creativity techniques). Their advantages and disadvantages are critically compared. It is suggested that a mixture of strategies of finding arguments should be used. Finally, a few remarks showing the relationship beween the strategies of finding arguments and creativity in general are given.