Short-term retention of superimposed and of spatially distinct multiletter visual arrays

On each trial, Ss attempted to retain a series of five visually presented letters while concurrently “shadowing” (repeating aloud) a rapid series of aurally presented letters. If serial-position accuracy is ignored, they were able to store more than only the last letter of a typical series, even though all five letters appeared on the same screen, and that performance was superior to the retention of five auditorily presented letters. Together, these findings suggest that a form of visual storage might have been employed for the retention of visual stimuli and, specifically, one that was relatively immune to erasure as compared to “iconic” storage. In further support of that hypothesis, retention of such visual series as measured by free-recall accuracy was not inferior to that of five letters, each of which was presented on a separate screen.     

Comments on “markovian processes with identifiable states: General considerations and applications to all-or-none learning”

When knowledge of the response sequence permits one to specify the sequence of theoretical states that occurred, we propose to say that the theory has observable states. Our earlier usage of identifiable conflicts with established usage in econometrics. We also present a revised definition of implication between theories that avoids a technical flaw in the earlier definition, and we correct a mistake in an example in our earlier paper.     

Order effects in Rokeach's Value Survey

Two-hundred-twelve sociology students completed a version of Rokeach's Value Survey in which the presentation order of the values was randomized. Each respondent received a unique randomization pattern. Spearman's correlations were computed between the presentation order and the order of ranking done by the respondent. The magnitude of the correlations obtained was such that the amount of bias created by presentation order was sufficiently small as to suggest that order effects are not a problem in the instrument.     

Age and Gender Role Conflict: A Cross-Sectional Study of Australian Men

A total of 221 educated middle-class Australian males across three age groups (18–24, 36–45, and 60-plus years), responded to O'Neil et al.'s Gender Role Conflict Scales and a set of measures for psychological well-being. A MANCOVA design, with psychological well-being as the covariate, found significant age differences on two gender-role conflict scales. Results suggest that certain conflicts in a man's life to do with ambition, career, and family may be seen as developmentally functional rather than dysfunctional. No age differences were found on the Gender Role Conflict variables for emotional expressiveness and intimacy between males. These two variables are discussed as a function of mood rather than indices of dysfunction.     

False memories of having said the unsaid: some new demonstrations

In a series of four studies, subjects who were naive as to the true purpose of the research were asked if they had said aloud things that, at most, they had only intended to say. Often, subjects reported (incorrectly) that they had said them. Specifically, the procedures involved: showing a series of phrases, each being followed by a command to say it aloud or not (Study 1); asking a series of questions, each being followed by a request to answer it aloud or not (Study 2); asking a series of questions in a public polling situation and interrupting the subject before one of the questions was answered (Study 3); and having each subject participate in a debate, during the course of which the participant was induced to plan to use a particular point, but was prevented from doing so (Study 4). Subjects were confident of such erroneous reports; they had a lower tendency to make such errors for material that had not actually been presented, and such errors depended upon certain details of the manner in which such ‘source-monitoring’ searches were initiated. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Commentary

A critique and discussion of the six papers offered in this volume is provided. Links to prior traditions in outcome and process research from the past are made. In addition the author reviews the somewhat negative reception of clinicians to empirical research and indicates the opinion that such attitudes have been to the detriment of our scientific status and public trust.