Traffic Offences: Planned or Habitual? Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour and habit strength to explain frequency and magnitude of speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol

This study addresses the socio‐cognitive determinants of traffic offences, in particular of speeding and drinking and driving. It has two aims: (1) to test the hypothesis of a direct effect of habits on offences (i.e., independent of intentions) by employing a specific measure of habits (i.e., the SRIH) and (2) to analyse the offences by taking account of three distinct parameters: Frequency, usual magnitude (i.e., the most frequent deviation from the law) and maximal magnitude (i.e., the greatest deviation occasionally adopted) in order to represent more accurately the variability of the offending behaviours. A total of 642 drivers replied to a questionnaire. The results corroborate the idea that intention and habit are distinct and direct determinants of offences. The use of the SRIH dismisses the criticisms made with regard to the measure of past behaviour. The distinction between the three behavioural parameters proves to be relevant, as their determinants are not exactly similar. Finally, attitude and subjective norm had direct effects on the maximal magnitude and/or on the frequency of the offence. The discussion concerns the contribution of this study to the analysis of offences as well as its limitations and addresses the theoretical plausibility of the direct effects of attitude and the subjective norm.     

Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

Previous studies have demonstrated that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are subjected to more extensive refutational processing, scrutinized longer, and judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. However, this study suggests whether extensive processing is implemented when evaluating arguments is not decided by argument compatibility, but by congruence between two evaluating tendencies elicited by both argument compatibility and argument quality. Consistent with this perspective, the results of two experiments show that relative to congruent arguments, participants judged arguments eliciting incongruent evaluating tendencies as less extreme in strength, spent more time, and felt more hesitant generating strength judgments for them. The results also show that it is mainly incongruent arguments, not congruent arguments, whose strength ratings were more closely associated with the perceived personal importance of the issue, which intensified the tendency to evaluate arguments depending on argument compatibility. These results suggest that it is the incongruity between argument compatibility and argument quality, and not simply the argument compatibility, that plays a more important role in activating an extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments.     

Sola Scriptura—A Hermeneutical Impossibility and a Doctrinal Necessity: Twenty‐One Theses

The following theses represent an attempt to delineate some of the contemporary basic conditions for maintaining the use of the sola Scriptura in the Lutheran churches. This must, I argue, be done without using it as a means for ignoring other types of information and experience than that which is contained in the Scriptures. I argue that sola Scriptura formulates what is necessary for salvation, but cannot be used to delineate or present all information that is necessary to live in the contemporary world and interpret all contemporary experience.