Outcome expectancy,locus of attribution for expectancy,and self-directed attention as determinants of evaluations and performance

Are internal versus external attributions of responsibility for prior outcomes important determinants of subsequent performances? or is their effect limited to influencing the affective and evaluative experiences that are associated with the task outcomes? Recent theoretical statements appear to differ on this issue. The present study examined the question, while at the same time testing the influence of self-directed attention on the process under investigation. Subjects attempted a series of mazes in collaboration with an ostensible cosubject (actually a confederate). The pair experienced either three consecutive sucesses or three consecutive failures. Subjects were led to perceive the responsibility for these outcomes as residing primarily with themselves or primarily with their partner. Self-focus was manipulated (by a mirror) prior to attempting a fourth maze and completing a set of rating scales. Success-condition subjects performed better on the fourth maze in the mirror's presence than in its absence, whereas failure-condition subjects tended to perform more poorly in the mirror's presence than in its absence. The manipulation of internal versus external attributions did not influence behavior, but did influence subjects' affective and evaluative reactions to themselves and their partner. Discussion centers on the relationship between these findings and other recent findings in the areas of attribution and achievement-related behavior.     

Moral judgments and self-presentations

Meehan, Woll, and Abbott (Journal of Research in Personality, 1979, 13, 25–38) have shown that scores on Hogan's Survey of Ethical Attitudes (SEA) are affected by instructions to simulate politically liberal or conservative attitudes. They also found that scores are affected by instructions to present one's self in a socially desirable or undesirable light, and that group ratings of the social desirability of the items could account for as much as 78% of the item response variance. Meehan et al. argue from these data that the SEA is a measure of political attitudes rather that moral judgments, and that the SEA is susceptible to dissimulation in the form of role playing and impression management. The present paper argues that test-taking is a form of self-presentation, identical to what goes on in everyday social interaction; this renders the Meehan et al. findings meaningful rather than problematic. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relationship between personality testing, self-presentation, moral judgments, and political attitudes.     

Scientific aspects of early eugenics

The eugenics movement supported applications of scientific breeding principles to humans, ultimately to encourage a better society, but actually with often disastrous social consequences. Although mostly viewed as quackery today, legitimate scientific considerations of fact and theory had an important role in determining the course of eugenics. A school of eugenics arose formally from attempts to apply Darwinian principles to humans in the context of biometry, a school that used statistical approaches to biology. Biometry emphasized blending inheritance and continuous traits, in marked contrast to the particulate inheritance of unit traits in Mendelism. Genetics was therefore a scientific challenge to eugenics, which was rooted in biometry. A Mendelian eugenics arose in the United States primarily under the influence of Charles Davenport. This paper reviews some of the technical issues involved in the development of this new paradigm, as well as Davenport's role as a scientist in this process.     

Unsophisticated judges' perceptual evaluations of the speech of “successfully treated” stutterers

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the speech of “successfully therapeutized” stutterers and a group of partially treated stutterers was perceptually different from the speech of normal speakers when judged by unsophisticated listeners. Tape-recorded speech samples of treated stutterers were obtained from leading proponents of (1) Van Riperian, (2) metronome-conditioned speech retraining, (3) delayed auditory feedback, (4) operant conditioning, (5) precision fluency shaping, and (6) “holistic” therapy programs. Fluent speech samples from these groups of stutterers were paired with matched fluent samples of normal talkers and presented to a group of 20 unsophisticated judges. The judges were instructed to select from each paired speech sample presented to them the one produced by the stuttering subject. The results of the analyses showed that five of seven experimental groups were identified at levels significantly above chance. It can be concluded that the fluent speech of the partially and successfully treated stutterers was perceptibly different from the utterances of the normal speakers and that the perceptual disparity can be detected, even by unsophisticated listeners.     

Peirce on Education: Nurturing the First Rule of Reason

Through an exegetic reading of Peirce’s minor texts on higher education, I find that Peirce’s conception of a “Liberal Education” is close to the Herbartian conception of Bildung. Peirce calls for a general education with the ambition of qualifying critical thinkers with the capacity to go beyond the strict rules and narrow borders of the artes liberales, – the different subject matters or sciences taught at a university. Thus, Peirce’s conception of a liberal education is closely linked to his interpretation of common sense – or sensis communis – as a critical commonsensism. To him, it is urgent to educate and nurture “the first rule of reason,” described as a will to learn, a curiosity, a dissatisfaction of what you already incline to think, and an intense desire to find things out. The nurturing of this “first rule of reason” is thus about educating an intellectual community of critical thinkers who are able to question authoritative beliefs, knowing how to debunk them, and how to turn away from obiter dictum.     

REMEMBERING ARTHUR PEACOCKE: A PERSONAL REFLECTION

I join others who have expressed profound gratitude for the life and thought of Arthur Peacocke. I recall some high points in my interaction with him during a period of forty years as an intellectual companion and personal friend. Some similarities in our thinking about evolution, emergence, top‐down causality, and continuing creation are indicated. Four points of difference are then discussed: (1) Emergent monism or two‐aspect process events? (2) Panentheism or process theism? (3) Creation ex nihilo and/or continuing creation? (4) Voluntary or necessary limitation of God's power? Even when we differed I have benefited immensely from our ongoing interaction.     

CHARLES LYELL,UNIFORMITARIANISM, AND INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLES

I examine the development of Charles Lyell's principle of uniformity and its influence on the development of modern geology and biology and argue that distinguishing between philosophical starting points and empirical findings is essential for clarity in the discussion between science and religion. First, I explore Lyell's arguments against catastrophism and how these were both empirically and religiously motivated. I then consider how David Hume's empiricism, theory of causation, and rejection of miracles influenced Lyell. Using these insights, Lyell formulated his principle of uniformity, which he believed was based on current empirical findings, and rejected explanatory hypotheses that used the biblical Flood or other catastrophist accounts as violations of uniform causation and introductions of theological concepts into empirical science. I next examine the influence of Lyell's principle on Charles Darwin. Although Lyell opposed Darwinism for most of his life, Darwin relied heavily on Lyell, as is evidenced by references throughout The Origin of Species. I contend that the most important aspect of Lyell's principle for Darwin is that it makes natural evil (the struggle for survival) a process that has always been occurring rather than something introduced after the Fall as recorded in Genesis. Finally, I discuss the role that uniformity plays for Lyell, Darwin, and modern science as an interpretive principle rather than as an inference from empirical data, and I conclude by noting that keeping the distinction in mind between interpretive principles and empirical findings will help clarify debates between science and religion.     

Shared Moral and Spiritual Development Among Human Persons and Artificially Intelligent Agents

Technical advances in artificial intelligence make somewhat likely the possibility of robotic or software agents exhibiting or extending human-level intelligence within a few decades. Theological investigation can help meet significant research goals in artificial intelligence by orienting the development of agent communication and moral reasoning toward a shared moral and spiritual development of human persons and intelligent agents. In particular, Josiah Royce’s Loyalty-to-Loyalty initiates a moral stance within which humans and intelligent agents can develop constructive ethical frameworks and his semiotic philosophy of community can guide the development and functioning of an agent’s interpretive processes and can model shared spiritual formation.     

DARWIN AND CHRISTIANITY: TRUTH AND MYTH

In recent years many historical myths about the relations between science and religion have been corrected but not always with sensitivity to different types and functions of “myth.” Correcting caricatures of Darwin's religious views and of the religious reaction to his theory have featured prominently in this myth‐busting. With the appearance in 2017 of A. N. Wilson's depiction of Darwin himself as a “mythmaker,” it is appropriate to reconsider where the myths lie in discourse concerning Darwin and Christianity. Problems with Wilson's account are identified and his provocative demeaning of Darwin is contrasted with an image gleaned from Darwin's friend and colleague George Romanes. The article concludes with a brief reference to the problem of suffering and to the work of Christopher Southgate.