Encoding of Facial Expressions of Emotion and Knowledge of American Sign Language

The relationship between knowledge of American Sign Language (ASL) and the ability to encode facial expressions of emotion was explored. Participants were 55 college students, half of whom were intermediate-level students of ASL and half of whom had no experience with a signed language. In front of a video camera, participants posed the affective facial expressions of happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, anger, and disgust. These facial expressions were randomized onto stimulus tapes that were then shown to 60 untrained judges who tried to identify the expressed emotions. Results indicated that hearing subjects knowledgeable in ASL were generally more adept than were hearing nonsigners at conveying emotions through facial expression. Results have implications for better understanding the nature of nonverbal communication in hearing and deaf individuals.     

Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross‐cultural differences

This article reviews how behaviors and psychological tendencies in close relationships differ between cultures, and proposes a socioecological framework to understand those differences. Our review of the literature finds that paradoxically, people in individualistic cultures are more actively engaged in close relationships (e.g., higher levels of social support, self‐disclosure, intimacy, and love) than those in collectivistic cultures. From an adaptationist perspective, we argue that one reason for these differences is higher levels of relational mobility in individualistic cultures. In societies with high relational mobility, where relationships are relatively more fragile, more active engagement in close relationships helps individuals to impress potential, and retain current, partners. We emphasize the importance of examining socioecologies to better understand close relationships.     

Coherence as a Test for Truth

This paper sets out to demonstrate that a contrast can be drawn between coherentism as an account of the structure of justification, and coherentism as a method of inquiry. Whereas the former position aims to offer an answer to the 'regress of justification' problem, the latter position claims that coherence plays a vital and indispensable role as a criterion of truth, given the fallibility of cognitive methods such as perception and memory. It is argued that 'early' coherentists like Bradley and Blanshard were coherentists of the latter kind, and that this sort of coherentism is not open to certain sorts of standard objection that can be raised against justificatory coherentism.     

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTINUITY, FISSION, AND THE NON-BRANCHING CONSTRAINT

Abstract: Those who endorse the Psychological Continuity Approach (PCA) to analyzing personal identity need to impose a non-branching constraint to get the intuitively correct result that in the case of fission , one person becomes two. With the help of Brueckner's (2005 ) discussion, it is shown here that the sort of non-branching clause that allows proponents of PCA to provide sufficient conditions for being the same person actually runs contrary to the very spirit of their theory. The problem is first presented in connection with perdurantist versions of PCA. The difficulty is then shown to apply to endurantist versions as well.     

THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RACIOETHNIC AND SEX SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT IN SELECTION

Pyburn, Ployhart, and Kravitz (this issue, 2008) introduced the diversity–validity dilemma: that some of the most valid predictors of job performance are also associated with large racioethnic and sex subgroup predictor score differences. This article examines 16 selection strategies hypothesized to minimize racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact and, hence, balance diversity and validity. Rather than presenting a highly technical review, our purpose is to provide practitioners with a concise summary, paying particular attention to comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of the strategies and reporting new developments. The paper is organized around 4 key questions: (a) Which strategies are most effective for reducing subgroup differences? (b) Which strategies do not involve a validity tradeoff? (c) What are the major new developments in strategies for reducing adverse impact? (d) What are the major new developments in alternative predictor measurement methods (e.g., interviews, situational judgment tests, assessment centers) for reducing adverse impact? We then conclude with recommendations and caveats for how to best balance diversity and validity. These ideas are developed further in Kravitz (this issue, 2008) , who considers even broader approaches for solving the diversity–validity dilemma.