Effects of Viewing “Holocaust” on Germans and Americans: A Just-World Analysis1

This study examines attributions of blame to the Nazis and the Jews for the events of the holocaust. The sample consisted of Germans and Americans who had viewed the television series “Holocaust” and comparison groups who had not seen the program. It was found that among viewers who identified with the Nazis, attributions of blame to the Jews were higher than among nonviewers or viewers who identified with the Jews. Attributions of blame to the Nazis did not vary as a function of viewing the television series. However, people who identified with the Nazis blamed the Nazis less for the holocaust than people who identified with the Jews. These results are discussed in terms of the justworld hypothesis (Lerner & Miller, 1978) and their implications for media presentations on the victims of oppression.     

IDENTIFYING THE EDUCATIVE AND SUPPRESSIVE EFFECTS OF POSITIVE PRACTICE AND RESTITUTIONAL OVERCORRECTION

Two major features of the overcorrection procedure, restitution and positive practice, were analyzed for their educative and suppressive properties in the treatment of profoundly retarded adults. Positive practice techniques that were topographically similar and dissimilar to the target behavior were studied. Eating behavior and puzzle performance were observed. Restitutional overcorrection and both forms of positive practice were effective for suppressing inappropriate behaviors. Even when appropriate behaviors had been acquired by positive practice, restitution and dissimilar positive practice were generally ineffective for increasing their rate of occurrence. However, topographically similar positive practice was successful as a means of teaching new appropriate behaviors.     

Sex differences and sex-role stereotyping in clinical psychologists' reports: a research note

This paper presents an empirical study of sex differences and sex-role stereotyping in clinical psychologists' reports. The results of numerous analyses showed no significant evidence at any point of sex differences or sex-role stereotyping in the form or the subject matter of the clinical reports.

     

Foveal diplopia thresholds and fixation disparities

Comparison of the magnitude and intrinsic spread of foveal diplopia thresholds with the accuracy of ocular alignment as determined with a subjective alignment method shows that: the accuracy of alignment in the vertical direction (within 1–2 min) is remarkably good and much better than in the horizontal direction; the largest disparities occurring due to restricted alignment accuracy are usually substantially smaller than the foveal diplopia thresholds; interindividual variability in the magnitude of foveal diplopia thresholds is not due only to interindividual variability in the alignment accuracy; and the spread of foveal diplopia thresholds exceeds the spread of ocular alignment, which implies that the noise in the foveal disparity domain is not only due to the restricted alignment accuracy but also to sensory processes. Finally, the data confirm that, unlike the case with diplopia thresholds, the spread of stereoscopic thresholds is not affected by the restricted alignment accuracy.     

Integrality over different paradigms: Card sorting and two-stimulus matching

Orthogonal interference—indicating the cohesiveness between geometrical dimensions—was examined using two separate tasks: (1) card sorting and (2) two-stimulus matching requiring same/different responses. The card-sorting results of the present experiment were contrasted with the results of our previous research (1977, 1979) which used the two-stimulus matching task. Results were generally similar in that the orthogonal interference and, consequently, the degree of integrality/separability were the same for both tasks. Evidence was found for the emergence of a new nominal dimension. This and other results are only compatible with a weaker form of the global-to-local hypothesis of perceptual processing.     

Analysis of variances and covariances is misleading as a guide to a common factor model

The “factor” analyses published by Schultz, Kaye, and Hoyer (1980) confused component and factor analysis and led in this case as in many others to unwarranted conclusions. They used component analysis to develop factor models that were subjected to restricted (confirmatory) maximum likelihood analysis, but the final models for which good fits with the observed correlations were obtained were not common factor models. They were, however, discussed as such and conclusions drawn accordingly. When their correlation matrices are analyzed by the principal factors method, two factors are sufficient to account for the intercorrelations. These two factors generally support the a priori expectation of a difference between intelligence tasks and spontaneous flexibility tasks. They are also quite similar in younger and older subjects, when similarity is judged in terms of factor pattern. Factor loadings for the younger subjects, however, are much smaller than expectations based on the respective ranges of talent in the two groups of subjects or on past experience with similar tests in undergraduate student populations.