Erratum: Do realistic reverberation levels reduce auditory distraction?

The above article (DOI: 10.1002/acp.1300 ) was published online in Early View on 29 September 2006. The initial online publication of this article omitted the second author's name. The correct author names and affiliations are reproduced below: NICK PERHAM^1*, SIMON BANBURY¹ and DYLAN M. JONES^{1,2 1}School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK ²Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia     

A laboratory-based study of the relationship between childhood abuse and experiential avoidance among inner-city substance users: the role of emotional nonacceptance

Despite the theorized centrality of experiential avoidance in abuse-related psychopathology, empirical examinations of the relationship between childhood abuse and experiential avoidance remain limited. The present study adds to the extant literature on this relationship, providing a laboratory-based investigation of the relationships between childhood sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, experiential avoidance (indexed as unwillingness to persist on 2 psychologically distressing laboratory tasks), and self-reported emotional nonacceptance among a sample of 76 inner-city treatment-seeking substance users. As hypothesized, results provide evidence for heightened experiential avoidance and emotional nonacceptance among individuals with moderate-severe sexual, physical, and emotional abuse (compared to individuals reporting none-low abuse). However, although emotional nonacceptance was associated with increased risk for experiential avoidance, it mediated the relationship between childhood abuse and experiential avoidance only for emotional abuse. As such, results suggest that one mechanism through which emotional abuse in particular leads to experiential avoidance is emotional nonacceptance. Findings suggest the utility of interventions aimed at decreasing experiential avoidance and promoting emotional acceptance among abused individuals.     

Adorno vs. Levinas: Evaluating points of contention

Although Adorno and Levinas share many arguments, I attempt to sharpen and evaluate their disagreements. Both held extreme and seemingly opposite views of art, with Adorno arguing that art presents modernity’s highest order of truth and Levinas denouncing it as shameful idolatry. Considering this striking difference brings to light fundamental substantive and methodological incompatibilities between them. Levinas’ assertion of the transcendence of the face should be understood as the most telling point of departure between his and Adorno’s critiques of instrumental reason. I attempt to explain why Levinas believed this move was justifiable and how Adorno would understand Levinas’ notion of illeity as a cultural byproduct and a form of dogmatism. Adorno’s historical and sociological account of the disenchantment of the world and the destruction of aura within a culture fully administered by scientific rationality and economic reductionism sharply contrasts to Levinas’ transcendental phenomenology, and I argue that Adorno’s thoroughgoing refusal to constrain dialectical reflection is ultimately more compelling. This paper benefited from exchanges with Jay Bernstein, Bob Scharff, Gregg Horowitz, David Wood, Max Pensky, Scott Bakker, and critics of the earlier version of this argument presented at the 2004 meeting of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. I also thank unnamed reviewers from Continental Philosophy Review for their generous and thoughtful comments and the members of the University of New Hampshire Center for Humanities for their financial support.     

Humanizing the self: moderators of the attribution of lesser humanness to others

Three studies investigated moderators of the tendency to attribute greater humanness to the self than to others, an interpersonal counterpart of outgroup infra-humanization. Study 1 demonstrated that this self-humanizing effect is reduced when the other is the focus of comparison. Study 2 showed that the effect is reduced when the other is individuated. Study 3 indicated that empathy does not moderate self-humanizing: Self-humanizing failed to correlate negatively with dispositional empathy or perspective-taking. Study 3 also indicated that abstract construal moderates the self-humanizing effect using a temporal comparison. Participants rated their future self, but not their past self, as less human than their present self. Studies 1 and 3 also showed that self-humanizing is greater for undesirable traits: People may view their failings as "only human." All findings were distinct from those attributable to self-enhancement. Self-humanizing may reflect a combination of egocentrism, focalism, abstract representation of others, and motivated processes.     

Psychological essentialism and attention allocation: preferences for stereotype-consistent versus stereotype-inconsistent information

People who believe that human attributes are immutable (entity theorists) display preferences for stereotype-consistent over stereotype-inconsistent information (J. E. Plaks, S. J. Stroessner, C. S. Dweck, & J. W. Sherman, 2001). In this article, the authors argue that entity theories are components of broader sets of beliefs that represent differences between people in terms of underlying essences. Consistent with expectations, the authors found that measures of essentialist beliefs (i.e., in the biological basis, discreteness, informativeness, and inherence of human attributes) covaried with the presence of entity theories. Essentialist beliefs as a set were related to stronger preferences for stereotype-consistent information, and this effect was not reducible to the effect of entity theories. The authors propose that research on implicit person theories can be placed within an encompassing framework of psychological essentialism.     

Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies – Engaging Differently?

The idea of conducting upstream public engagement over emerging technologies has been gaining popularity in Europe and North America, with nanotechnologies seen as a test case for this. For many of its advocates, upstream engagement is about a re-conceptualisation of the science–society relationship in which a variety of ‘publics’ are brought together with stakeholders and scientists early in the Research and Development process to co-develop technological trajectories. However, the concept, aims and processes of upstream engagement remain ill-defined, are often misunderstood, and have undergone little critical analysis. This special issue of NanoEthics, entitled ‘Engaging with Nanotechnologies–Engaging Differently?’ takes a multi-nation, multi-case approach to explore this idea, drawing on work represented by four articles from the US and Europe, from ethnographic work in the nanotechnology lab through to analysis of a Citizens’ Jury and other attempts to move public debate ‘upstream’. An overall message from the papers is that without adequate critique ‘upstream engagement’ might end up re-producing out-dated forms of science communication or being rejected as a failed concept before it has even matured.     

Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: structure and implications for prejudice

The structure of beliefs about the nature of homosexuality, and their association with antigay attitudes, were examined in three studies (Ns = 309, 487, and 216). Contrary to previous research, three dimensions were obtained: the belief that homosexuality is biologically based, immutable, and fixed early in life; the belief that it is cross-culturally and historically universal; and the belief that it constitutes a discrete, entitative type with defining features. Study 1 supported a three-factor structure for essentialist beliefs about male homosexuality. Study 2 replicated this structure with confirmatory factor analysis, extended it to beliefs about lesbianism, showed that all three dimensions predicted antigay attitudes, and demonstrated that essentialist beliefs mediate associations between prejudice and gender, ethnicity, and religiosity. Study 3 replicated the belief structure and mediation effects in a community sample and showed that essentialist beliefs predict antigay prejudice independently of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and political conservatism.