Intuition, reason, and metacognition

Dual Process Theories (DPT) of reasoning posit that judgments are mediated by both fast, automatic processes and more deliberate, analytic ones. A critical, but unanswered question concerns the issue of monitoring and control: When do reasoners rely on the first, intuitive output and when do they engage more effortful thinking? We hypothesised that initial, intuitive answers are accompanied by a metacognitive experience, called the Feeling of Rightness (FOR), which can signal when additional analysis is needed. In separate experiments, reasoners completed one of four tasks: conditional reasoning (N = 60), a three-term variant of conditional reasoning (N = 48), problems used to measure base rate neglect (N = 128), or a syllogistic reasoning task (N = 64). For each task, participants were instructed to provide an initial, intuitive response to the problem along with an assessment of the rightness of that answer (FOR). They were then allowed as much time as needed to reconsider their initial answer and provide a final answer. In each experiment, we observed a robust relationship between the FOR and two measures of analytic thinking: low FOR was associated with longer rethinking times and an increased probability of answer change. In turn, FOR judgments were consistently predicted by the fluency with which the initial answer was produced, providing a link to the wider literature on metamemory. These data support a model in which a metacognitive judgment about a first, initial model determines the extent of analytic engagement.     

Do personality characteristics and beliefs predict intra‐group bullying between prisoners?

This study assesses how beliefs about aggression and personality can predict engagement in intra‐group bullying among prisoners. A sample of 213 adult male prisoners completed the DIPC‐SCALED (bullying behavior), the EXPAGG (beliefs toward aggression), and the IPIP (a five‐factor measure of personality). It was predicted that bullies would hold greater instrumental beliefs supporting the use of aggression than the other categories, with perpetrators reporting lower scores on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, and higher scores on neuroticism (i.e. low scores on emotional stability) than the remaining sample. Bullies and bully‐victims endorsed greater instrumental aggressive beliefs than the victim category. Only one perpetrator group, bullies were predicted by reduced levels of agreeableness and increased levels of neuroticism, whereas bully/victims were predicted by decreased levels of neuroticism. Limitations of this study and directions for future research are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 36:261–270, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Proactively performing teams: The role of work design,transformational leadership,and team composition

This study investigated the determinants of team proactive performance amongst 43 shift teams from a UK chemical processing plant. Using external ratings of team proactive performance, the study found that the most proactive teams were those with higher levels of self‐management, transformational team leaders, and a higher‐than‐average level of proactive personality. The relationship between transformational leadership and team proactive performance was mediated by favourable interpersonal norms. In addition, lower diversity of proactive personality amongst team members had an indirect association with team proactive performance via its negative effect on favourable interpersonal norms.     

Differential Daily Writing Conditions and Performance on Major Multiple-Choice Exams

Students (N=153) in three equivalent sections of an undergraduate human development course compared pairs of related concepts via either written or oral discussion at the beginning of most class sessions. A writing-for-random-credit section achieved significantly higher ratings on the writing activities than did a writing-for-no-credit section. The writing-for-random-credit section also obtained significantly higher correlations between the writing ratings and scores on multiple-choice exam items related to the conceptual pairs (r=.74) and on total exam scores (r=.78) than did the writing-for-no-credit section (rs=.45 and .43, respectively). Finally, the writing-for-random-credit condition produced significantly higher scores on exam items related to the conceptual pairs than did the oral-discussion-only condition. Plus, effect-size comparisons showed weak to medium differences between exam scores under the writing-for-random-credit and the writing-for-no-credit condition.     

To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors

Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.

     

Relationships between Sabbath Observance and Mental,Physical, and Spiritual Health in Clergy

Pastoral Psychology - Keeping the Sabbath, that is, setting a day apart for rest and spiritual rejuvenation, has been related to better mental health and less stress in cross-sectional studies....     

The efficacy of structural ecosystems therapy with drug-abusing/dependent African American and Hispanic American adolescents.

Many family therapies for adolescent drug use include ecological interventions. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to establish whether ecological interventions contribute to the impact of family therapy above and beyond the contributions of family process-only interventions. A family-based ecological approach, structural ecosystems therapy (SET), was compared with family process-only condition (FAM) and community services control (CS). One hundred ninety substance-abusing or dependent African American and Hispanic adolescents were randomized to SET, FAM, or CS. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months postrandomization. SET was significantly more efficacious than FAM and CS in reducing adolescent drug use. However, these improvements were limited to Hispanic adolescents. The study demonstrates the importance of investigating changes in adolescent drug use as a result of treatment condition across more than 1 racial/ethnic group.     

THE IDEA OF DEFENSE IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY THINKING ABOUT JUST WAR

What is, or should be, the role of defense in thinking about the justification of use of armed force? Contemporary just war thinking prioritizes defense as the principal, and perhaps the only, just cause for resorting to armed force. By contrast, classic just war tradition, while recognizing defense as justification for use of force by private persons, did not reason from self‐defense to the justification of the use of force on behalf of the political community, but instead rendered the idea of just cause for resort to force in terms of the sovereign's responsibility to maintain justice, vindicating those who had suffered from injustice and punishing evildoers. This paper moves through three major stages in the historical development of just war thinking, first examining a critical phase in the formation of the classical idea of just cause as the responsibility to maintain justice, then discussing the shift, characteristic of the modern period, to an idea of sovereignty as connected to the state and the prioritization of defense of the state as just cause for use of force, and lastly showing how this conception of the priority of defense became part of the recovery of just war thinking in the latter part of the twentieth century. The paper concludes by noting recent changes in thought on international law that tend to emphasize justice at the expense of the right of self‐defense, suggesting that the roots of just war thinking imply the need for a similar rethinking of contemporary just war discourse.     

Incest,Inbreeding, and Intrafamilial Conflict: Analyzing the Boundaries of Sexual Permissiveness in Modern North America

Our ability to critically analyze the effect of incestuous activity on society is complicated by the fact that such activity may take place in several different types of relationships, each of which play somewhat different roles within the family and community. Thus, if we are to analyze this effect in any meaningful manner, we must first take care to differentiate the various forms of incest from one another, and to study their consequences separately so that any effects due to relationship status, rather than to incest per se, can be taken into account. We must also ensure that we separate our definition of incest from that of non-consensual sex—that is, incest that occurs in couples in which one partner is too young to legally consent should be distinguished from incest that occurs between two consenting adults (i.e. incest per se), and the effects of these two variants of incest should as well be assessed separately. Using these careful definitions, it can be logically argued that incest on its own should not be prohibited in modern North American society, as the damage to our freedom that such a prohibition would entail cannot be justified by what little unambiguous evidence there is to support its case.