To Fail or Not to Fail? Implications of Extinction on Creativity and Problem-Solving Behavior

The Psychological Record - According to Epstein (1985), extinction is one of the main processes for creative problem solving. To test this assertion, we present an experiment in which we...     

Remembering object position in the absence of vision: egocentric, allocentric, and egocentric decentred frames of reference

In three experiments we examined whether memory for object locations in the peri-personal space in the absence of vision is affected by the correspondence between encoding and test either of the body position or of the reference point. In particular, the study focuses on the distinction between different spatial representations, by using a paradigm in which participants are asked to relocate objects explored haptically. Three frames of reference were systematically compared. In experiment 1, participants relocated the objects either from the same position of learning by taking as reference their own body (centred egocentric condition) or from a 90 degrees decentred position (allocentric condition). Performance was measured in terms of linear distance errors and angular distance errors. Results revealed that the allocentric condition was more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. In experiment 2, participants performed either the centred egocentric condition or a decentred egocentric condition, in which the body position during the test was the same as at encoding (egocentric) but the frame of reference was based on a point decentred by 90 degrees. The decentred egocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. Finally, in experiment 3, participants performed in the decentred egocentric condition or the allocentric condition. Here, the allocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the decentred egocentric condition. Taken together, the results suggest that also in the peripersonal space and in the absence of vision different frames of reference can be distinguished. In particular, the decentred egocentric condition involves a frame of reference which seems to be neither allocentric nor totally egocentric.     

The enactive approach and disorders of the self - the case of schizophrenia

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences - The paper discusses two recent approaches to schizophrenia, a phenomenological and a neuroscientific approach, illustrating how new directions in...     

Cross-cultural differences in academic self-efficacy and its sources across socialization contexts

Social Psychology of Education - This study investigated how as reported by Bandura (Self-efficacy: The exercise of control Freeman, 1997) sources of self-efficacy differ across socialization...     

How do applicants fake? A response process model of faking on multidimensional forced-choice personality assessments

Faking on personality assessments remains an unsolved issue, raising major concerns regarding their validity and fairness. Although there is a large body of quantitative research investigating the response process of faking on personality assessments, for both rating scales (RS) and multidimensional forced choice (MFC), only a few studies have yet qualitatively investigated the faking cognitions when responding to MFC in a high-stakes context (e.g., Sass et al., 2020). Yet, it could be argued that only when we have a process model that adequately describes the response decisions in high stakes, can we begin to extract valid and useful information from assessments. Thus, this qualitative study investigated the faking cognitions when responding to MFC personality assessment in a high-stakes context. Through cognitive interviews with N = 32 participants, we explored and identified factors influencing the test-takers' decisions regarding specific items and blocks, and factors influencing the willingness to engage in faking in general. Based on these findings, we propose a new response process model of faking forced-choice items, the Activate-Rank-Edit-Submit (A-R-E-S) model. We also make four recommendations for practice of high-stakes assessments using MFC.