Make the manikin move: Symbolic approach–avoidance responses affect implicit and explicit face evaluations

The present research aimed to replicate and extend findings of Huijding, Muris, Lester, Field, and Joosse (2011), investigating whether symbolic approach–avoidance responses can induce implicit and explicit evaluation biases. Faces with a neutral expression were shown on a computer screen, and participants were instructed to repeatedly move a manikin towards some faces (approach) and away from other faces (avoidance). An affective priming task and a face rating task were used to assess training-compatible differences in implicit and explicit face evaluations, respectively. Results showed that the manikin training was successful: The priming task revealed more positive implicit evaluations of approached than avoided faces, and approached faces were rated more positively than avoided ones in the face rating task. These findings replicate those of Huijding and colleagues by demonstrating training effects on explicit evaluations, and they extend them by demonstrating effects on implicit evaluations.     

Visual context does not promote concurrent sequence learning

Concurrent sequence learning (CSL) of two or more sequences refers to the concurrent maintenance, in memory, of the two or more sequence representations. Research using the serial reaction time task has established that CSL is possible when the different sequences involve different dimensions (e.g., visuospatial locations versus manual keypresses). Recently some studies have suggested that visual context can promote CSL if the different sequences are embedded in different visual contexts. The results of these studies have been difficult to interpret because of various limitations. Addressing the limitations, the current study suggests that visual context does not promote CSL and that CSL may not be possible when the different sequences involve the same elements (i.e., the same target locations, response keys and effectors).     

A Latent Variable Framework for Power Estimation Within Intervention Contexts

This paper presents a latent growth SEM approach for the estimation of treatment effects, and power to detect such effects, within a true experimental design setting in which subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions. Power estimation is a critical component of intervention experiment design and the testing of their results. Although researchers have become increasingly sophisticated in applying tests for statistical significance in intervention contexts, few are aware of the power of these tests. The issues raised in this paper are not new; however, reminding researchers to consider these points is important. Exactly how the researcher handles these issues will depend on the questions asked and the resources available, as well as other considerations. Discussion underscores the relationship between the reliability of a study's measures and concomitant increases in power obtained within the SEM framework.     

Failures to induce implicit evaluations by means of approach–avoid training

Woud, Becker, and Rinck (2008) asked participants to repeatedly push pictures of certain faces away and to pull pictures of other faces towards them using a joystick. Performance in a subsequent affective priming task showed that previously pulled faces evoked more positive implicit evaluations then previously pushed faces. We report five studies in which we failed to find consistent evidence for the effect of approach–avoid training on implicit evaluations. We also failed to reproduce the effect reported by Woud et al. when reanalysing their data. An overall analysis that included our data, the data of Woud et al. and additional data provided by Woud and colleagues also did not reveal a significant effect of approach–avoid training on implicit evaluations. We conclude that the impact of approach–avoid training on implicit evaluations is subject to subtle boundary conditions.     

Finding Empathy: How Neuroscientific Measures,Evidence and Conceptualizations Interact

ABSTRACT

Questions about how empathy should be conceptualized have long been a preoccupation of the field of empathy research. There are numerous definitions of empathy that have been proposed and that often overlap with other concepts such as sympathy and compassion. This makes communication between research groups or across disciplines difficult. Many researchers seem to see the diversity of definitions as a problem rather than a form of benign pluralism. Within this debate about conceptualization, researchers sometimes suggest that more neuroscientific evidence will make the problem go away – that uncovering the processes underlying empathy will thereby also sort out conceptual difficulties. In this paper, I challenge this assumption by examining how neuroscientists studying empathy use concepts in practice – both in the development of their measures and in the interpretation of their data. I argue that this neuroscientific literature demonstrates that continuity and stability comes from the use of certain established measures, while progress comes from expansion upon those measures and the flexibility of stated concepts. We do not ‘find’ empathy through increased neuroscientific evidence but we do get closer to understanding empathic processes, flexibly understood.     

Reliability and validity of measures of anger/hostility in singapore: Cook & Medley Ho Scale, STAXI and Buss-Durkee hostility inventory

As part of a larger research programme concerned with the role of anger/hostility in heart disease in Singapore, three commonly used measures of anger/hostility (Cook & Medley Ho Scale, STAXI, Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory) were examined for reliability and validity in an Asian population. A total of 968 Singaporean Chinese, Malay and Indian respondents completed one or more of these measures together with measures of symptom and illness experience. In addition, blood pressure and heart rate measures were taken for 201 respondents. Overall, the Ho and STAXI measures had reasonably high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the Buss Durkee measure were high for the total score but variable for the component scales. Correlation and regression showed that the Ho and STAXI appeared to be tapping a common core of variance, which can be characterized as trait anger. Correlations of the Ho and STAXI with health measures produced modest but statistically significant correlations for measures of symptom and illness experience and generally low and non-significant correlations for heart rate and blood pressure.     

Examining Individual Differences in Interpersonal Influence: On the Psychometric Properties of the Generalized Opinion Leadership Scale (GOLS)

Opinion leadership describes an individual's tendency to informally influence others’ attitudes and overt behaviors. In contrast to contemporary views of opinion leadership as a highly domain-specific trait, this paper introduces a multi-faceted personality trait, generalized opinion leadership (GOL) that characterizes exceptionally influential individuals independent of a specific subject area. Two studies report on the psychometric properties of a scale to assess GOL. Study 1 is based on three independent samples (N = 1,575, N = 1,275, and N = 231) and demonstrates the factorial structure of the instrument and its measurement invariance across sex, age, and educational levels. Study 2 (N = 310) analyzes multitrait-multiinformant data to highlight the scale's discriminant validity with regard to innovativeness and trendsetting.     

Exceptionalism or Chinamerica: Measuring Religious Change in the Globalizing World Today

Religion is changing fast in this era of globalization. Major global trends include the growth of Muslims, the shrinking percentage of unaffiliated, and the rapid rise of Christianity in global China. By 2030, China is likely to become the largest Christian country in the world while retaining large numbers of Buddhists, Muslims, and folk religious believers. To capture religious changes more accurately, social scientists of religion must sharpen their measurement tools regarding religiosity; pay more attention to the reality of nonalignment among religious identity, belief, and practice; and acknowledge the reality of nonexclusive/multiple religious beliefs, practices, and identities. Scholars must also take responsibility for developing a clear and nuanced definition of religion, abandon exceptionalist thinking, and seek to discover common patterns of religious change across societies. Conceptual and measurement tools at the disposal of social scientists of religion should enable us to perceive and understand the converging changes of religion in China, the United States, and other societies, without ignoring their historical differences and contemporary particularities.     

Nesselroade and Molenaar's Measurement Concerns and Proposals: An Introduction

In this special section Nesselroade and Molenaar (N & M) propose a provocative new approach to measurement invariance. When measures are collected repeatedly over time (e.g., daily diary studies), a potentially unique measurement model relating the items to the underlying construct can be created for each individual. If hypothesized causal paths specified between constructs (e.g., frustration → aggression) can be constrained to be equal across the individuals, a model with idiographic measurement of the constructs, but with nomothetic structural relationships can be specified. Three commentaries react to N & M's proposal. Revelle and Wilt challenge the priority given by N & M to unique individual measurement structures, arguing that between subjects differences in structural relationships are empirically important and meaningful. Markus's uses David Hume's framework to raise philosophy of science challenges for N & M's approach. Maydeu-Olivares challenges the incremental validity of N & M's approach, arguing that N & M's approach is unlikely to improve the prediction of between subjects criteria. Finally, N & M present a rejoinder to the three commentaries.