Community Coalition Building—Contemporary Practice and Research: Introduction

Over the last 20 years, coalition building has become a prominent intervention employed in communities across America. Coalitions provide community psychologists and those in related fields with a chance to work with whole communities and to better understand how to create community change. As we reflect on the past two decades of community coalition building, there are many questions to be answered about this phenomenon. Why has there been such an upsurge in community coalition building activity? What is the impact of this activity? What have we as students of community learned? What are the questions that we need to be asking to improve the effectiveness of coalition building efforts and their evaluation? This set of articles will review the state of the art of community coalition building in both practice and research. The structure of the articles reflects a collaborative process, with multiple contributors from different disciplines, using a variety of formats. Because this is an evolving phenomenon where the questions asked are as important as the lessons learned, many of the major sections include dialogues with community experts from across the country and from multiple fields, including community psychology, public health, political science, public administration, and grassroots organizing.     

The Future of Community Coalition Building

The future holds great promise for community coalitions as powerful interventions for community change. Community change is envisioned as: working with whole communities; increasing grassroots and civic engagement; promoting diversity, collaboration and, advocacy; increasing roles for professional technical assistance and evaluation; future changes in the role of government; and the building of healthy communities. Examples of these dimensions follow, as contributed by activists from a wide range of fields.     

Task effects, performance levels, features, configurations, and holistic face processing: A reply to Rossion

A recent article in Acta Psychologica (“Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception” by Rossion [Rossion, B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 128(2), 274-289]) criticized several aspects of an earlier paper of ours [Riesenhuber, M., Jarudi, I., Gilad, S., & Sinha, P. (2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (Supplements), 271, S448-S450]. We here address Rossion’s criticisms and correct some misunderstandings. To frame the discussion, we first review our previously presented computational model of face recognition in cortex [Jiang, X., Rosen, E., Zeffiro, T., Vanmeter, J., Blanz, V., & Riesenhuber, M. (2006). Evaluation of a shape-based model of human face discrimination using FMRI and behavioral techniques. Neuron, 50(1), 159-172] that provides a concrete biologically plausible computational substrate for holistic coding, namely a neural representation learned for upright faces, in the spirit of the original simple-to-complex hierarchical model of vision by Hubel and Wiesel. We show that Rossion’s and others’ data support the model, and that there is actually a convergence of views on the mechanisms underlying face recognition, in particular regarding holistic processing.     

Reactive and Proactive Aggression: Cross-informant Agreement and the Clinical Utility of Different Informants

The current study examined cross-informant agreement and clinical utility of parent and teacher ratings of reactive and proactive aggression (two functions of aggression) in the prediction of aggressive and rule-breaking behavior (two forms of aggressive behavior) in a clinically-heterogeneous referred sample. Reactive and proactive measures were significantly related to one another within informant. Furthermore, the reactive and proactive measures of aggression were significantly related across informants and resulted in differential predictions of emotion-focused aggressive and goal-directed rule-breaking behaviors in home and school settings. Both reactive and proactive functions of aggression predicted aggressive acts that were more emotion-focused, whereas only the proactive function of aggression predicted instrumental acts of aggression. The current findings suggest that setting-specific reports of functions and forms of aggressive behavior are valuable and that it may be premature to abandon the reactive and proactive aggression distinction.

Training, Perfectionism and Fairness

abstract This paper considers the question of whether unemployed individuals have a duty of fairness to accept retraining as a condition of receiving unemployment benefit. It is argued, in response to Stuart White, that, although there are some circumstances where individuals do have such a moral duty, for an egalitarian it is never the case that there is sufficient reason for enforcing such a duty by means of the law.