The rapid-smoking technique: Subject characteristics and treatment outcome

There is a lack of consistency in findings regarding subject (S) characteristics and the effects of smoking-control programmes. Research workers appear to assume that abstinence and reduction in smoking rate are merely different points in the same continuum, and therefore seek to correlate S variables with percentage reductions in smoking rate. It is argued that abstinence and reduced smoking are more appropriately viewed as potentially discrete outcomes. Conceptualizing outcome in this manner, a discriminant function analysis was employed to determine whether it is possible to differentiate between Ss who do, or do not, abstain following participation in a treatment programme involving rapid-smoking. It was found that it is possible to discriminate between the two groups of Ss. Advantages deriving from this approach to the investigation of S characteristics and treatment outcome are discussed.     

Visual and verbal modes of information processing and their relation to the effectiveness of cognitively-based anxiety-reduction techniques

This study examined the interaction between preferred modes of information processing (visual and verbal) and two cognitively-based anxiety-reduction techniques. One technique was based on the use of images as a coping strategy while the other employed a self-instructional approach. Thirty-six subjects reporting high levels of dental fear were assigned to one of three groups (two types of treatment and a no-treatment control). One-half of the subjects in each group had been identified as preferring the visual mode of information processing while for the other half the verbal mode was preferred. After treatment, subjects viewed an anxiety-inducing videotape depicting a visit to the dentist. Results indicated that, while both treatments were significantly effective in reducing self-reports of discomfort while viewing the videotape, there was no significant interaction between the type of treatment and preferred cognitive mode. The results were interpreted as indicating that treatment may override individual cognitive styles. Furthermore, the data suggested that the normal individual has the ability to adapt to divergent and non-preferred forms of information processing.     

Alexithymia as a potential source of symptom over‐reporting: An exploratory study in forensic patients and non‐forensic participants

The traditional interpretation of symptom over‐reporting is that it indicates malingering. We explored a different perspective, namely that over‐reporting of eccentric symptoms is related to deficits in articulating internal experiences (i.e., alexithymia). Given that alexithymia has been linked to sleep problems and that fatigue may fuel inattentive responding to symptom lists, we administered measures of alexithymia (TAS ‐20) and symptom over‐reporting (SIMS ), but also sleep quality (SLEEP ‐50) to forensic psychiatric outpatients (n = 40) and non‐forensic participants (n = 40). Forensic patients scored significantly higher on all three indices than non‐forensic participants. In the total sample as well as in subsamples, over‐reporting correlated positively and significantly with alexithymia, with r s being in the 0.50–0.65 range. Sleep problems were also related to over‐reporting, but in the full sample and in the forensic subsample, alexithymia predicted variance in over‐reporting over and above sleep problems. Although our study is cross‐sectional in nature, its results indicate that alexithymia as a potential source of over‐reporting merits systematic research.     

THE COMMUNITY VIEW REVISITED

Abstract: Joining a vast Wittgensteinian anti‐theoretical movement, John Canfield has argued that it is possible to read the claims that (1) “language is essentially communal” and (2) “it is conceptually possible that a Crusoe isolated from birth should speak or follow rules” in such a way that they are perfectly compatible, and, indeed, that Wittgenstein held them both at once. The key to doing this is to drain them of any theoretical content or implications that would put each claim at odds with the other. I argue here, first of all, that it is not possible to detheorize both (1) and (2) and still hope to say anything illuminating about the nature of language. In fact, Canfield himself does not succeed in detheorizing both (1) and (2) but ends up trivializing (1) and leaving (2) with quite a bit of theoretical content. I further argue, however, that this is getting the matter the wrong way around. Contra Canfield et al., it is only when we recognize this that we can appreciate how radical and innovative Wittgenstein's claims about language really are.