Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment

We use the results of a large online experiment on word knowledge in Dutch to investigate variables influencing vocabulary size in a large population and to examine the effect of word prevalence—the percentage of a population knowing a word—as a measure of word occurrence. Nearly 300,000 participants were presented with about 70 word stimuli (selected from a list of 53,000 words) in an adapted lexical decision task. We identify age, education, and multilingualism as the most important factors influencing vocabulary size. The results suggest that the accumulation of vocabulary throughout life and in multiple languages mirrors the logarithmic growth of number of types with number of tokens observed in text corpora (Herdan's law). Moreover, the vocabulary that multilinguals acquire in related languages seems to increase their first language (L1) vocabulary size and outweighs the loss caused by decreased exposure to L1. In addition, we show that corpus word frequency and prevalence are complementary measures of word occurrence covering a broad range of language experiences. Prevalence is shown to be the strongest independent predictor of word processing times in the Dutch Lexicon Project, making it an important variable for psycholinguistic research.     

A focused attention intervention for coping with ostracism

Ostracism—being excluded and ignored—thwarts satisfaction of four fundamental needs: belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. The current study investigated whether training participants to focus their attention on the here-and-now (i.e., focused attention) reduces distress from an ostracism experience. Participants were first trained in either focused or unfocused attention, and then played Cyberball, an online ball-tossing game for which half the participants were included or ostracized. Participants reported their levels of need satisfaction during the game, and after a short delay. Whereas both training groups experienced the same degree of need-threat in the immediate measure, participants who were trained in focused attention showed more recovery for the delayed measure. We reason that focused attention would not reduce the distress during the ostracism experience, but it aided in recovery by preventing participants from reliving the ostracism experience after it concludes.     

Jesus the Teacher

One of the strongest portraits of Jesus in the Gospels is that of a teacher (Lee, 1988).¹ Other than the title “Lord,” people call Jesus “Teacher” more often than any other epithet in the New Testament, and often with a great deal of respect and admiration (Mark 10:17; Matt 22:16).² Jesus also calls himself a “teacher.” In the story of the preparation for the Last Supper, for example, Jesus instructs his disciples to find a room for the paschal meal and to tell the owner that “the teacher” has need of it (Mark 14:14; Matt 26:18; Luke 22:11). Apart from the portrayal of him as an infant, the earliest picture we have of him is the episode of the 12-year-old Jesus amazing the teachers in the temple with his learning (Luke 2:46-47). Other depictions include the itinerant Jesus teaching multitudes (Matt 5–7), individuals (John 3 and 4), adversaries (Luke 15), and disciples (Mark 4:10-20, 33–34; 7:17-23; 10:10-11,23-31). He teaches in the temple (Matt 26:55; Mark 1117; John 7:14), in synagogues (Matt 4:23; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:15; John 6:59), in houses (Mark 7:17-18; 9:28), from a boat (Luke 5:3), on the hillside (Matt 5:1-2), at a well (John 4:7-30), at table (Luke 7:36-50),on the road (Luke 24:13-32), and by the shore (Mark 2:13; 4:1). In other words, Jesus teaches people wherever he is and wherever they are. In fact, Matt 26:55 evidences that Jesus taught on a daily basis. Today, in the Western world this traveling teacher is considered the most famous pedagogue (Highet, 1950, 190). With these thoughts in mind, let's (1) examine the words used to specify “teacher” in the ancient world and show how Jesus both corresponds to and differs from the perceptions this title implies, (2) suggest some teaching methods used by Jesus, and (3) propose a way modern teachers can learn from him.     

Youth Media Lifestyles

In this article, the concept of “media lifestyles” is adopted in order to develop a comprehensive approach toward youth engagement in communication media. We explore how 503 Dutch eighth grade students with full access to new technology combine a broad range of media by focusing on their engagement with media while taking various contexts of use into account. Four different media lifestyles of media omnivores, networkers, gamers, and low‐frequency users are described. Furthermore, we show how the methodology we used is able to provide more insight into how the distinguished media lifestyles were codetermined by particular media, functions and social contexts. Finally, the implications for the Uses & Gratifications theory are discussed.     

Relative judgments affect assessments of stimulus duration

Humans were trained on two independent temporal discriminations, with correct choice dependent on the initial stimulus duration. In Experiment 1, the durations were 1.0 and 4.0 sec, with one set of choice stimuli, and 2.0 and 8.0 sec, with a different set of choice stimuli. The 2.0- and 4.0-sec values were selected to be the geometric mean of the two values in the other discrimination. In Experiment 2, the durations were 2.0 and 5.0 sec for one discrimination and 3.5 and 6.5 sec for the other. The 3.5- and 5.0-sec values were selected to be the arithmetic mean of the two values in the other discrimination. In both experiments, participants showed evidence for relational coding of the duration pairs. That is, the test durations were selected to be at the presumed bisection point (i.e., they should have produced indifferent choice), but instead the shorter test duration from the longer duration pair produced a “short” bias (in both experiments), whereas the longer duration from the shorter duration pair produced a “long” bias (in the second experiment). Results were similar to those from Zentall, Weaver, and Clement (2004) with pigeons.     

Heterogeneous inhibition processes involved in different facets of self-reported impulsivity: evidence from a community sample

Whiteside and Lynam (Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669-689) clarified the multifaceted nature of impulsivity by identifying four distinct facets of self-reported impulsive behaviors: urgency, (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance, and sensation seeking. Building on work by Bechara and Van der Linden (Bechara, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2005). Decision-making and impulse control after frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 734-739), the main objective of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that perseverance and urgency map onto the two distinct inhibitory functions distinguished by Friedman and Miyake (Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101-135): prepotent response inhibition and resistance to proactive interference. Participants (N = 126) completed the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale and three tasks: a recent-negatives task to assess proactive interference in working memory, and two Go/No-Go tasks at different paces, the slower of which also assessed task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs). Consistent with the hypothesis, TUTs were positively correlated with lack of perseverance, and multiple regressions revealed that urgency was specifically related to errors in prepotent response inhibition, and lack of perseverance to errors due to difficulties overcoming proactive interference.     

Rational model and justification model in ‘outcome bias’

The authors of this study suggest that the harm‐punishment link (‘outcome bias’) can be explained by the activation of different judgment processes depending on the outcome severity of an offense: (1) a rational model for mild outcomes in which punishment is necessarily linked to responsibility of the perpetrator; (2) a justification model for severe outcomes in which punishment and responsibility are linked only when assessment order allows the latter to rationalize the former. Participants (126 university students) considered an unintentional road accident with mild or severe outcomes and made judgments of responsibility, punishment, and perceived seriousness of the offense. The results support the authors' hypothesis. In the discussion, the authors suggest different motives of punishment (preventive or compensative justice) which explain why responsibility and punishment are not necessarily linked. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.