Roe's classification and the multidimensional nature of occupational perception

The purpose of this study was to compare college students' perceptions of the similarity of occupations with the groupings suggested by Roe (1956). Subjects were 90 male and 99 female university freshmen. Four illustrative titles were selected from five of Roe's eight groups. Subjects were asked to judge the similarity of each of the possible pairs of titles. The results were analyzed using multidimensional scaling procedures. The data provide partial support for Roe's postulated structure, although the subject's perceptions were generally more complex than suggested by Roe. In particular, the hypothesized circumplex arrangement of groups received only limited support.     

Visual reinforcement in fighting cocks

Fighting cocks were conditioned to emit a key-pecking response on a fixed ratio reinforcement schedule leading to the visual image of another fighting cock. In addition, the relative reinforcing properties of the visual reinforcer were compared with food and water reinforcers in a three-choice, non-reversible option situation. The relative reinforcing effects of mirror presentation and another rooster visually presented through a window, were compared. The mirror maintained a relatively lower response output.     

Finitism and Divisibility: A Reply to Puryear

Puryear (AJP, 2014) develops an objection against a prominent attempt to show that the universe must have a temporal beginning. Here I formulate a reply.     

The impact of event vividness,event severity,and prior paranormal belief on attributions towards a depicted remarkable coincidence experience: Two studies examining the misattribution hypothesis

Two studies examine the impact event vividness, event severity, and prior paranormal belief has on causal attributions for a depicted remarkable coincidence experience. In Study 1, respondents (n = 179) read a hypothetical vignette in which a fictional character accurately predicts a plane crash 1 day before it occurs. The crash was described in either vivid or pallid terms with the final outcome being either severe (fatal) or non‐severe (non‐fatal). Respondents completed 29 causal attribution items, one attribution confidence item, nine scenario perception items, a popular paranormal belief scale, and a standard demographics questionnaire. Principal axis factoring reduced the 29 attribution items to four attribution factors which were then subjected to a 2 (event vividness) × 2 (event severity) × 2 (paranormal belief) MANCOVA controlling for respondent gender. As expected, paranormal believers attributed the accurate crash prediction less to coincidence and more to both paranormal and transcendental knowing than did paranormal sceptics. Furthermore, paranormal (psychokinesis) believers deemed the prediction more reflective of paranormal knowing to both (1) a vivid/non‐fatal and (2) a pallid/fatal crash depiction. Vividness, severity, and paranormal belief types had no impact on attribution confidence. In Study 2, respondents (also n = 179) generated data that were a moderately good fit to the previous factor structure and replicated several differences across attributional pairings albeit for paranormal non‐believers only. Corresponding effects for event severity and paranormal belief were not replicated. Findings are discussed in terms of their support for the paranormal misattribution hypothesis and the impact of availability biases in the form of both vividness and severity effects. Methodological issues and future research ideas are also discussed.     

What Triggers Anger in Everyday Life? Links to the Intensity,Control, and Regulation of These Emotions,and Personality Traits

Why do people experience anger? Most of our knowledge on anger‐triggering events is based on the study of reactions at a single time point in a person's life. Little research has examined how people experience anger in their daily life over time. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive examination of the situational determinants of anger over the course of 3 weeks. Using daily diary methodology, people (N = 173; 2,342 anger episodes) reported their most intense daily anger and, with an open‐ended format, described the trigger. Participants also answered questions on anger intensity, control, and regulatory strategies, along with baseline personality trait measures. Using an iterative coding system, five anger trigger categories emerged: other people, psychological and physical distress, intrapersonal demands, environment, and diffuse/undifferentiated/unknown. Compared with other triggers, when anger was provoked by other people or when the source was unknown, there was a stronger positive association with anger intensity and lack of control. Personality traits (i.e., anger, mindfulness, psychological need satisfaction, the Big Five) showed few links to the experience and regulation of daily anger. Although aversive events often spur anger, the correlates and consequences of anger differ depending on the source of aversion; personality traits offer minimal value in predicting anger in daily life.     

Why I’m still a proportionalist

Mark Schroeder has, rather famously, defended a powerful Humean Theory of Reasons. In doing so, he abandons what many take to be the default Humean view of weighting reasons—namely, proportionalism . On Schroeder’s view, the pressure that Humeans feel to adopt proportionalism is illusory, and proportionalism is unable to make sense of the fact that the weight of reasons is a normative matter. He thus offers his own ‘Recursive View’, which directly explains how it is that the weight of reasons is a normative matter. In this paper, I argue against Schroeder that a Humean ought to be a proportionalist. On my view, proportionalism is clearly an intuitive theory of weighting for a Humean, so we should resist it only if Schroeder can demonstrate either that there is a serious problem with the view, or that there is a better alternative. I then further argue that Schroeder fails to deliver on either condition. As a result, I conclude that there are good intuitive reasons for a Humean to be a proportionalist, and no good reason not to be.     

Predictors of effective formal mentoring: Is the mentor’s commitment all that matters?

The present research explores how the intersection of motivation and ability contributes to mentoring success. Extending the motivation-aptitude model of performance to mentoring effectiveness and building on socioanalytic theory, we examined whether mentor commitment and other mentor attributes impacted supervisors’ evaluation of mentors’ effectiveness. Using self-report and third-party rating data from a sample of 102 mentors and 14 supervisors from a multinational organization, support was found for our hypotheses. Consistent with our theorizing about the importance of supplementing mentor commitment with important aptitudes, the results of the multilevel analyses showed that mentor commitment did not translate to mentoring effectiveness as rated by one’s supervisor when mentors lacked getting along (i.e., self-monitoring and political skill) or getting ahead (learning goal orientation and strategic outlook) attributes.