The relationship between attitude,assertiveness and condom use

The Australian study investigated condom-specific assertiveness and condom use as a means of prevention infection from sexually transmitted diseases. 211 men participated including 83 homosexual men (aged 19-62 years) and 128 heterosexual men (aged 17-49) who completed a questionnaire that comprised demographic details such as age, monogamy, and sexual activity as well as attitudinal and assertiveness measures. General assertiveness was measured by the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) which had been widely used across a wide range of social situations. Assertiveness relating specifically to situations involving condoms was measured by the Condom Assertiveness Scale (CAS). Intention to use condoms was positively related to favorable attitudes, which were related to condom-specific assertiveness for both groups. For the heterosexual men only, general social assertiveness was negatively related to attitudes toward condoms. For both groups, the condom-specific measure of assertiveness was positively correlated with attitudes toward condoms. Condom-specific assertiveness was positively related to general social assertiveness as measured by the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule for the homosexual, but not for the heterosexual men. The negative relationship between general assertiveness and attitude to condoms among the heterosexual men implies that the risk reducing behavior of condom use did not seem to accord with the perceptions of masculinity and social assertiveness among heterosexual men. Thus, female partners of such heterosexual men exhibiting negative attitudes toward condom use combined with assertiveness would have to overcome resistance to insist on the use of condoms. Recently some advertising campaigns have been directed at women. The promotion of condom use among heterosexual men has to deal with the perceptions of condom use as unmasculine behavior.     

Differential validity by sex in employment settings

The current study meta-analyzes 59 male-female pairs of validity coefficients obtained during revalidation of the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) for evidence of differential validity by sex. Results suggest that general cognitive ability may be slightly more predictive of rated job performance for women than for men in our sample of studies. Moderator analyses examined the effects of occupational sex-dominance and cognitive complexity. Results of these analyses indicate that, in single sex-dominated occupations, tests of general cognitive ability and perceptual ability are more valid for members of the dominant sex, and these differences are more apparent at low-complexity levels. Explanations for the findings are offered in terms of properties of the ratings criterion.An earlier version of this paper was given at the 2nd annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The authors thank Dave Synk for providing the occupation codes for each study.     

Suggestiveness in photospread line-ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness

The present research examined whether line-ups based on target (‘suspect’) face similarity are biased or suggestive. Four experiments are described in which subjects constructed photographic line-ups by selecting foils similar in appearance to a target. Later, another group of subjects who had not seen the faces before (mock witnesses) were asked to pick out the targets from the line-ups. All four experiments showed that mock witnesses selected the target significantly more often than expected by chance, thereby demonstrating suggestiveness. Three alternative line-up construction methods were also evaluated. In these methods, foil selection was based not only on target similarity but also on similarity with one or more of the other line-up faces. Results showed that alternative line-up targets were not selected significantly more often than chance, suggesting that bias was reduced. An overall analysis showed that the alternative line-ups were significantly less suggestive than target-based line-ups. The results indicate that foil selection procedures that incorporate foil-to-foil similarity produce fairer line-ups than those exclusively based on target similarity.     

La classification des exemples d'après Aristote (Rhétorique 2,20)

Aristotle considers all examples, as far as they are used as rhetorical arguments, to be inductions (Rhetoric 1, 2, 8). On the other hand, he finds it worthwhile to distinguish different kinds of examples (viz., historical example, comparison, and fable). Moreover, comparisons and fables are said to be made by the orator, whereas historical examples are not (Rhetoric 2, 20, 2s). The present article attempts to explain this opposition.A close examination of what can be meant by induction reveals that this term applies differently to historical examples and to comparisons and fables. In a broader sense, all examples can be called inductions, insofar as a certain logical relation, different from the syllogistic one, obtains between conclusion and premises. This relation, however, is unable to explain why examples can serve as arguments. Applied to historical examples only, the term induction preserves its original meaning of checking samples in a number sufficient to yield generalization. In its narrow sense, induction gives a satisfactory account of how historical examples work. As for comparisons and fables — to which induction applies in a broader sense only — Aristotle fails to explain what makes them arguments. The explanation, missing in Rhetoric 2, 20, can, however, be given according to the general lines of Aristotelian dialectics and rhetorics. The main task of comparison and fable is to elaborate a so far unconsidered middle term (M) meeting the following conditions: the hearer is prepared to agree that M applies to the subject of the conclusion and that the predicate of the conclusion applies to M. All examples make use of a general proposition from which their conclusion can be inferred. Historical examples (like real inductions) produce instances, in order to confirm a proposition previously admitted as suitable premise, provided that its truth can be proved. Comparison and fables, by introducing a new middle term, try to form a premise susceptible of being admitted without proof.

---

La classification des exemples d'après Aristote (Rhétorique 2,20)

     

Investigating reasoning in maternity-care scheduling

How do expert schedulers reason? One view states that experts generally reason by applying rules; another, that their reasoning is mainly based on cases. This paper constitutes the first results of an ongoing project designed to analyze the acquisition and representation of the knowledge of expert and novice schedulers in the context of these two views. It is concluded that the reasoning of the analyzed maternity-care scheduling experts can best be described as based on rules, and that the reasoning of novices in maternity-care scheduling is primarily case based.     

Receiving and giving support: Effects on relationships and well-being

Sixty-five subjects reported amount of social support given and received, and satisfaction with relationships where support exchanges took place. Negative affect from relationships, psychological symptoms, and happiness were also measured. Multiple regression analyses showed that receiving and giving support was related to some negative feelings toward the relationships concerned. Receiving support was also related to inflated anxiety symptoms. Effects of receiving support on guilt and dependent feelings were moderated by relationship satisfaction. Effects of giving support on anxiety were also moderated by relationship satisfaction. Extraversion and satisfaction with relationships predicted happiness. There were some individual differences in support exchanges. Extraverts gave more support. Women received more support whereas conscientious people received less.     

Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem

This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in which the concept of relevance is differentiated along three co-ordinate dimensions: object, domain and aspect. With the help of this taxonomy, it can be shown that the problems of evaluative relevance with which the standard approach to fallacies cannot satisfactory deal can be more systematically approached within a pragma-dialectical framework. This is demonstrated for the argumentum and hominem, which is erroneously treated as a homogenous type of relevance fallacy in logico-centric analyses, so that cases where this is not justified must be treated as ad hoc exceptions.