Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences

In a series of three experiments, subjects made risky decisions under conditions of hypothetical or real consequences. Task variations across experiments included: (1) type of risk (monetary gambles or investments of time and effort), (2) within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of consequence condition, and (3) single or multiple decisions. The hypothesis of no difference between choices in real and hypothetical consequence conditions was retained in each experiment. Supplemental analyses ruled out various “artifactual” interpretations of the null results. Discussion focused on conditions in which researchers can and cannot infer decision makers’ actual risk preferences from their responses in laboratory tasks.     

Rationally developed fake-good and fake-bad scales for the Jesness Inventory

Develops two validity scales for the Jesness Inventory using a rational approach: a fake-good scale, Lie (L); and a fake-bad scale, Overt Symptomatology (OS). Effectiveness was assessed using 293 male delinquents classified as fake-good, fake-bad, or honest based on a matched-pair MMPI-A. L was moderately effective in detecting the fake-good set, and OS tentatively effective in detecting the fake-bad set. Both correlated well with their MMPI-A counterparts. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, negative predictive power, and overall effectiveness data were reported. The L scale and OS scale were related to race but differences were less than 1 raw score point. L was unrelated to age. OS was related to age, with younger children showing more willingness to admit to symptomatology. Age-based modified T-score norms were developed for the newly constructed scales using 1142 male and 360 female delinquents. ages 13–18.     

A short form of the Common Beliefs Survey III

Previous studies have shown that the Common Beliefs Survey III (CBS III) is an irrational beliefs inventory with satisfactory psychometric properties. We extended research on the CBS by examining this 54-item inventory for redundant material, and substantially abbreviated it without compormising its reliability or validity. This article describes the development of the new, 19-item short form (CBS19), convenient for clinical use, that preserves the psychometric properties of the original.     

Beliefs about stories: Parents' and therapists' explanations of childhood difficulties

Therapists and parents were given vignettes describing the behavioural and emotional difficulties of two nine-year-old children and were asked to rate the importance of a number of possible explanations for such difficulties. Broad agreement was found between parents and therapists, but also there were a number of significant differences. Parents endorsed more child centered explanations and put greater emphasis on physical and developmental factors, while therapists endorsed relationships factors and saw the beliefs of other family members as important. Therapists who were parents showed a pattern of responses that lay between those of parents and non-parent therapists.     

A. F. Losevs personalistische ontologie

A. F. Losev, one of the most important Russian philosophers and historians of ancient aesthetics and culture in the 20th century, develops in his ‘Dialectics of the Myth’ (Dialektika mifa), 1930, a personalistic ontology by using elements of neoplatonic philosophy and Orthodox Christian belief. According to Losev reality in all its different expressions and ontological strata must be understood as “mythical”, i.e. as “living mutual exchange of subject and object”. The subjective and personal aspect of reality is not grounded in man’s epistemic relation to it alone; reality in itself has to be characterized as personal and subjective. The main philosophical opponent is Descartes, the founder of “modern rationalism and mechanism”.

     

Consider the source: One step in assessing premise acceptability

Premise acceptability is conceptually connected to presumption. To say that a premise is acceptable just when there is a presumption in its favor is to give a first approximation to this connection. A number of popular principles of presumption suggest that whether there is a presumption for a premise, belief, or claim depends on the sources which vouch for it. Sources consist of internal belief-generating mechanisms and external testimony. Alvin Plantinga's notion of warrant lays down four conditions upon a source for the belief which it generates to be warranted. We argue that there is a presumption for a premise, belief, or claim if and only if there is a presumption of warrant for that premise,belief or claim. This amounts to the thesis that there is a presumption for a belief from a challenger's point of view if and only if there is a presumption from that person's point of view that her cognitive faculties which have generated the belief have been functioning properly, in an appropriate cognitive environment, in accord with a segment of her design plan aimed at the truth, and that these faculties are reliable. In light of our argument for this thesis, we may legitimately claim that one way to determine that there is a presumption for a belief is to determine that there is a presumption of warrant for that belief, and thus that in determining whether there is a presumption for a belief or premise, we may consider the source.     

Teaching peer reinforcement and grocery words: An investigation of observational learning and instructive feedback

A multiple probe across behaviors design, replicated across participants, assessed the effectiveness of constant time delay in teaching appropriate peer reinforcement and grocery words to 3 elementary students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Additionally, pretests and posttests assessed the acquisition of the participants' observational learning (acquisition of peers' grocery words) and instructive feedback (related information supplied by the teacher in the consequent event). Results indicate that the participants learned (a) how to appropriately reinforce peers, (b) to read their grocery words, (c) some of the targeted stimuli of their peers, and (d) much of the instructive feedback that was associated with each of the grocery words. Maintenance data indicate that the participants maintained their target grocery words at high levels of accuracy.