BLOTS AND ALL: A HISTORY OF THE RORSCHACH INK BLOT TEST IN BRITAIN

Despite the easily recognizable nature of the Rorschach ink blot test very little is known about the history of the test in Britain. We attend to the oft‐ignored history of the Rorschach test in Britain and compare it to its history in the US. Prior to the Second World War, Rorschach testing in Britain had attracted advocates and critiques. Afterward, the British Rorschach Forum, a network with a high proportion of women, developed around the Tavistock Institute in London and The Rorschach Newsletter. In 1968, the International Rorschach Congress was held in London but soon after the group became less exclusive, and fell into decline. A comparative account of the Rorschach in Britain demonstrates how different national institutions invested in the ‘projective hypothesis’ according to the influence of psychoanalysis, the adoption of a nationalized health system, and the social positioning of ‘others’ throughout the twentieth century. In comparing and contrasting the history of the Rorschach in Britain and the US, we decentralize and particularize the history of North American Psychology.     

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL BEHAVIORS: SUPERVISOR PERCEPTIONS AND SUBORDINATE REACTIONS

This study examined supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions to formal performance-appraisal reviews. The performance-appraisal behaviors of supervisors and the reactions of their subordinates were studied in a sample of university employees. A factor analysis revealed that there were three dimensions of formal performance appraisals: two developmental dimensions (being supportive; emphasizing performance improvement) and one administrative dimension (discussing pay and advancement). Regression analyses suggested that supervisors supported highly rated individuals and stressed improvement efforts for poor performers. After controlling for the level of previous performance ratings, results indicated that support in the appraisal review was associated with higher levels of employee motivation, while discussing pay and advancement was associated with higher levels of employee satisfaction. Unfortunately, improvement efforts by the supervisors did not influence job performance one year later.     

Where should the balance be between “scientist” and “practitioner” in Australian undergraduate psychology?

The scientist—practitioner model of training in psychology has been widely influential in the development of undergraduate curricula in Australia. The model had its origins in post‐war America and has formed the basis for accreditation of psychology courses in Australia since the late 1970s. Recently a reconsideration of the model in Australian undergraduate psychology was argued for, suggesting that the absence of significant practical skills development in most curricula is detrimental to the discipline's graduates and their employers. The authors agree that the need for some practical skills development in undergraduate curricula is becoming increasingly important for psychology. Many of the exemplars of curriculum revision provided, however, are impractical and are unlikely to make significant contributions to Australian programs. There is an urgent need to consider the graduate attributes desired for 3‐year and 4‐year trained psychology graduates who will go on to employment without completing postgraduate study. Curriculum innovation to enhance graduates' employability will flow from this development, and will be likely to incorporate information technology solutions, rather than placement experience. This process is entirely compatible with the scientist—practitioner model of training and education in psychology.     

What IS Wrong with Foundationalism is that it Cannot Solve the Epistemic Regress Problem*

There are many things that could be wrong with foundationalism. For example, some have claimed that a so‐called basic belief cannot be both 1) a reason for non‐basic beliefs and 2) such that it cannot be provided with at least prima facie justification.1 If something is a reason, they say, then that something has to be a proposition (or sufficiently proposition‐like) and if it is a proposition (or sufficiently proposition‐like), then it is the kind of thing that requires a reason in order to be even prima facie justified.2 Another reason that some give for rejecting normative foundationalism is that it leads directly to skepticism.3 There is no way, they claim, to move from so‐called basic propositions (typically given as first person introspective reports) to “external world” propositions by employing normatively acceptable principles of reasoning.4 Still others have thought that the invention of a nonrea‐soned reason was as ad hoc as the invention of an unmoved mover.5     

Quantifying Family Process:Issues in the Analysis of Interaction Sequences

The analysis of behavior sequences can be a useful technique for understanding family process and has been increasingly employed as a result of developments in family theory. Some of the most popular sequential analytic methods are reviewed, and problems of applying these methodologies to investigations of family interaction are discussed. Independence-of-observations, nonstationarity, and autocontingency are differentiated as three distinct types of serial dependence. In addition, issues concerning the choice of data type, analysis of low base rate behaviors, and the decision as to whether to correct for base rates are considered. Guidelines are presented for dealing with each of these issues in the context of the research or clinical question being addressed.     

Incorporating geographic distance into mate preference research: Necessities and luxuries, 2.0

This study (N = 370) examined mate preferences in men and women using the budget allocation paradigm across traits typically studied and the value placed on geographic proximity or propinquity. Importantly, traditionally studied preferences (i.e., physical attractiveness and social status) were seen as priorities, whereas the novel trait of distance was a luxury, suggesting that people were willing to travel to find a partner who satisfies their more important mate preferences. Men valued a short‐term mate who was close to them more than women did. Prior work on mate preferences was replicated in their context‐specific nature as per evolutionary models of mate choice.