Feedback during exposure to inescapable shocks and subsequent shock-escape performance

In two experiments, we assessed the ability of a feedback stimulus during helplessness training to reduce the performance deficits common to inescapable shock. In each experiment, four groups of rats were exposed to either escapable shock (E), inescapable shock with a feedback stimulus following shock termination (Y-FS), inescapable shock with no feedback stimulus (Y-NFS), or no shock (N). The feedback stimulus eliminated the interference effects of inescapable shock when tested with an FR-3 lever press escape task (Experiment 1) or on an FR-1 task with a 3-s delay between the response and shock termination (Experiment 2). These results suggest that stress-induced biochemical changes may mediate the interference effects seen in inescapably shocked rats.     

Investigations of the reinstatement of extinguished fear

In two experiments, fear was conditioned to the situational cues in one compartment of a hurdle-jumping apparatus and was then extinguished. Subsequently, either one shock (Experiment 1) or three or nine shocks (Experiment 2) were given in a situation distinctively different from that in which conditioning and extinction had taken place. Although some associative strength between the situational cues and fear was shown to have remained after extinction, in neither experiment did the postextinction-shock treatment increase the fear elicited by these cues: Escape-from-fear performance was no better in the shocked groups than in control groups given no additional shock. Thus, the nonassociative hypothesis which postulates that inflating the value of the representation of the UCS with shock-alone presentations can reinstate the extinguished fear of a stimulus was not supported. Rather, the results showed that, after extinction, an increase in fear of a simulus depended on further conditioning to that stimulus. The data also indicated that the nonvisual components of the situational cues predominated over the visual component.     

The validity of Mobley's (1977) model of employee turnover

Unlike earlier tests of an oversimplified version of this model, the validity of W. Mobley's (1977, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240) original turnover model was fully investigated. Constructs that were neglected in prior studies were assessed and previously examined constructs were operationalized with more reliable measures. Measures of all constructs in Mobley's model were obtained from a survey of 192 hospital employees. Turnover data were collected a year following survey administration. Following the theoretical causal ordering of Mobley's constructs, each construct was regressed on all causally prior constructs. In general, each construct was accurately predicted by the linear combination of predictors representing its causal determinants. In the majority of instances, the best predictor of a model construct was the construct's immediate causal antecedent. Further, an alternative model was evaluated and compared with Mobley's model using path analysis.     

Pastoral theologian of the year,William Barr Oglesby,Jr.

This article acknowledging and celebrating William Barr Oglesby, Jr. as Pastoral Theologian of the Year for 1983, was originally published inPastoral Psychology 32(1) in Fall, 1983. As a result of some errors that inadvertently modified both the tone and the meaning of the text, we are republishing this article here in its entirety.     

METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Review and metaanalyses of published validation studies for the years 1964-1982 of Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology were undertaken to examine the effect of (1) research design; (2) criterion used; (3) type of selection instrument used; (4) occupational group studies; and (5) predictor-criterion combination on the level of observed validity coefficients. Results indicate that concurrent validation designs produce validity coefficients roughly equivalent to those obtained in predictive validation designs and that both of these designs produce higher validity coefficients than does a predictive design which includes use of the selection instrument. Of the criteria examined, performance rating criteria generally produced lower validity coefficients than did the use of other more "objective" criteria. In comparing the validities of various types of predictors, it was found cognitive ability tests were not superior to other predictors such as assessment centers, work samples, and supervisory/peer evaluations as has been found in previous metaanalytic work. Personality measures were clearly less valid. Compared to previous validity generalization work, much unexplained variance in validity coefficients remained after corrections for differences in sample size. Finally, the studies reviewed were deficient for our purposes with respect to the data reported. Selection ratios, standard deviations, reliabilities, predictor and criterion intercorrelations were rarely and inconsistently reported. There are also many predictor-criterion relationships for which very few validation efforts have been undertaken.