Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus: implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity

Counterfactual thinking is associated with regulatory focus in a way that explains previous empirical incongruities, such as whether additive counterfactuals (mutations of inactions) occur more or less frequently than subtractive counterfactuals (mutations of actions). In Experiment 1, regulatory focus moderated this pattern, in that additive counterfactuals were activated by promotion failure, whereas subtractive counterfactuals were activated by prevention failure. In Experiment 2, additive counterfactuals evoked a promotion focus and expressed causal sufficiency, whereas subtractive counterfactuals evoked a prevention focus and expressed causal necessity. In Experiment 3, dejection activated additive counterfactuals, whereas agitation activated subtractive counterfactuals. These findings illuminate the interconnections among counterfactual thinking, motivation, and goals.     

Newsworthy Moral Dilemmas: Justice,Caring, and Gender

Gilligan (1982) put forth a care moralorientation based on women's responses to moraldilemmas. We tested in 2 studies Gilligan's predictedgender differences and the effect of dilemma content onmoral orientation. We used real-life dilemmasconsisting of the Baby M surrogate motherhood case andthe Kimberly Mays case where babies were switched atbirth;these dilemmas had the advantage of beingstandardized across all participants, and of being moreinvolving than hypothetical dilemmas. The Baby M dilemmaelicited primarily justice responses while the KimberlyMays case elicited care responses; yet in both these dilemmas, when compared to men, womenscored higher on care, and lower on justice.Additionally, moral orientation was related to specificresolutions ofthe dilemmas.Thus both genders wereflexible in their use of justice and care orientationsdepending on the dilemma, with gender differences stillapparent within dilemmas.     

Couple resilience and life wellbeing in firefighters

The validity of the Couple Resilience Inventory was tested using 102 married or cohabiting firefighters. This instrument measures types of relationship behavior that often occur during stressful life events and that are expected to be associated with an ability to cope with employment in a stressful occupation. It includes scales measuring two nearly orthogonal dimensions, with one dimension pertaining to positive behavior and the other to negative. Firefighters completed an online questionnaire that included the Couple Resilience Inventory and measures of relationship satisfaction, exposure to traumatic events, and life wellbeing. In line with hypotheses, scales measuring positive and negative couple resilience were nearly orthogonal to each other, and distinct from a measure of relationship satisfaction, but both scales correlated positively with exposure to traumatic events, and both correlated in opposite directions with relationship satisfaction and life wellbeing. Results were consistent with the theoretical model and they supported instrument validity.     

From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders

The emerging etiological model for developmental disorders, like dyslexia, is probabilistic and multifactorial while the prevailing cognitive model has been deterministic and often focused on a single cognitive cause, such as a phonological deficit as the cause of dyslexia. So there is a potential contradiction in our explanatory frameworks for understanding developmental disorders. This paper attempts to resolve this contradiction by presenting a multiple cognitive deficit model of developmental disorders. It describes how this model evolved out of our attempts to understand two comorbidities, those between dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and between dyslexia and speech sound disorder (SSD).     

Testing hypotheses regarding the causes of comorbidity: examining the underlying deficits of comorbid disorders

The authors examined the validity of a method commonly used to test alternative hypotheses regarding the causes of comorbidity: the examination of underlying deficits of comorbid disorders. The authors simulated data in which the true causes of comorbidity were known, then compared the patterns of underlying deficits of the comorbid disorders found in the simulated data with the predicted results. The method of examining the underlying deficits of comorbid disorders could distinguish between several comorbidity models, including those that could not be distinguished well using other methods. The ability to distinguish the correct model decreased as the sample size and the correlation between the underlying deficits and the symptom scores decreased, suggesting that the issue of power should be considered carefully.     

Memory and judgment: Availability versus explanation-based accounts

Two theories about the relationship between memory and decisions are examined. In an explanation-based model, the organization in memory of decision-relevant information determines decisions. In an availability model, the amount of information sampled from memory that supports competing decisions is crucial. In Experiment 1, subjects read evidence from a legal trial, made decisions, and provided free-recall data. Evidence presentation order was manipulated to produce differences in evidence coherence. When the prosecution evidence order was coherent, the subjects were more likely to choose guilty verdicts, and recall of prosecution evidence, relative to defense evidence, was greater. Thus, both evidence coherence and availability of information in memory could account for the basic findings. In Experiment 2, recall differences were eliminated as a function of evidence order. The results show that verdict effects favoring the more coherent prosecution evidence are obtained even when the relative amounts of prosecution and defense recall are equated across conditions.     

Is Cumulative Exposure to Suicide Attempts and Deaths a Risk Factor for Suicidal Behavior Among Firefighters? A Preliminary Study

The association between cumulative exposure to suicide attempts and deaths and suicidal behavior was examined in a sample of 61 professional firefighters. On average, firefighters reported 13.1 (SD = 16.6) exposures over the course of their lifetime. Cumulative exposure to suicide attempts and deaths was positively correlated with suicidal behavior (r = .38, p = .004). Moreover, firefighters with 12+ exposures were more likely to screen positive for risk of suicidal behavior (OR = 7.885, p = .02). Additional research on the potential impact of cumulative exposure to suicide attempts and deaths on firefighters' health and safety is needed.