Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research

Nonserious answering behavior increases noise and reduces experimental power; it is therefore one of the most important threats to the validity of online research. A simple way to address the problem is to ask respondents about the seriousness of their participation and to exclude self-declared nonserious participants from analysis. To validate this approach, a survey was conducted in the week prior to the German 2009 federal election to the Bundestag. Serious participants answered a number of attitudinal and behavioral questions in a more consistent and predictively valid manner than did nonserious participants. We therefore recommend routinely employing seriousness checks in online surveys to improve data validity.     

Goal orientation of team leaders: Its effects on performance and group interaction in software development projects

Abstract

Goal orientation is an action style implying the development of long-range and precise goals, and persistent pursuit of these goals. Goal orientation is not only important for a person's own performance but also for the performance of others in a co-operative work setting. This applies particularly to team leaders, whose goal orientation was predicted to correlate with both team performance and quality of group interaction within the team. In a sample of 44 team leaders and 141 other team members of software development projects it was found that team leaders' goal orientation is related to the quality of the development process, the quality of the final product, and the interaction within the team. This is true both for team leaders' estimates of the dependent variables and for aggregated scores of the team members' estimates. Interaction effects between team members' and team leaders' goal orientation were also found.     

Communication and performance in software development projects

A study of 21 software development (SD) project groups using data from 170 participants holding different positions (engineers, user representatives, project managers) and a quasi-longitudinal design shows that user participation inhibits, and standardization of methods and tools facilitates, effective SD project performance. Over and above these effects, hierarchical regression analysis reveals taskrelated internal communication to predict performance positively. Moderated regression analysis reveals that high communication facilitates project performance more strongly in late stages of the project life-cycle and when standardization of methods and tools is low. Implications for facilitating SD projects' functioning, for future research and theory building, are discussed.     

Übertragung und Übertragungsneurose

The authors investigate Freud's concepts of transference, transference neurosis and their mutual relationship. They discuss the current criticism made on the concept of transference neurosis and raise the question, why patients accept the analyst's interpretations? They suggest understanding transference neurosis as conscious manifestations of transference referring to the analyst which are the outcome of successive interpretations of the type "just-like" followed, changed, and removed again by "just-like-it-was"-interpretations. They conclude that the patient does accept these interpretations not for reasons that are rational, but for reasons pertaining the transference situation.     

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

The ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of arguments and classifying common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, their judgements are often erroneous, in part because their use of strategy is immature. Implications for systematic trainings of epistemic competences are discussed.