Agonistic and sociable behaviors in the mound‐building mice,Mus spicilegus: A comparative study with Mus musculus domesticus

Present social organization and mating systems result from selective pressures and ecological conditions but also from proximate interactions between individuals. Many studies report on a polygynous mating system with a social group territoriality in commensal populations of Mus musculus domesticus. However, little is known about the social organization of other Mus species living in outdoor conditions, such as the mound‐building mouse Mus spicilegus. Comparative studies between M. m. domesticus and M. spicilegus have already shown behavioral differences in female sexual preferences and paternal care. To study agonistic and sociable interactions and gain insight into the social organization and the mating system of M. spicilegus, the present study compared intraspecific dyadic encounters between unfamiliar adults in these two species. Results demonstrated less tolerance between females and between the sexes in M. spicilegus than in M. m. domesticus unfamiliar mice. The consequences of those differences between M. spicilegus and M. m. domesticus on social organization and mating system are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 28:75–84, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Does the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) measure maladaptive aspects of guilt and adaptive aspects of shame? An empirical investigation

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Concious Affect. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University) measures maladaptive forms or aspects of guilt and adaptive aspects of shame that have been described in the literature. First, a judgmental and logical analysis showed that the TOSCA primarily measures mild and adaptive forms and aspects of guilt and maladaptive aspects of shame. Next, principal components analyses (PCAs) in a student (N=328) and adult (N=542) sample showed that items that had a high loading on the guilt factor primarily were items that referred to reparative behavior, while items that had high loadings on the shame factor consisted primarily of items that referred to low self-esteem. To investigate to which extent these items were responsible for correlations found with the TOSCA, we constructed a revised guilt scale containing only items that referred to reparative behavior and a revised shame scale consisting of items that only referred to negative self-esteem, and related these to indices of interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning. The revised TOSCA scales reproduced both the pattern and magnitude of correlations obtained with the original TOSCA scales. Thus, taken together, the results of this study support the interpretation of the TOSCA guilt scale as a measure of mild and adaptive forms of guilt and the TOSCA shame scale as a measure of maladaptive aspects associated with shame. Implications of these findings for further research on the nature of guilt and shame are discussed.     

Do personality factors predict job satisfaction?

Two studies investigated the relationships between personality traits and aspects of job satisfaction. In Study 1, job applicants (n=250) completed the Eysenck Personality Profiler and the Work Values Questionnaire (WVQ), which requires respondents to rate various work-related facets according to the extent to which they contribute to their job satisfaction. These facets were combined into two composites (hygiene and motivator) based on previous research. The three personality superfactors accounted for a small percentage of the variance in importance ratings (about 5%). In Study 2, employees (n=82) completed a measure of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (JSQ), which assesses both what respondents consider as important in their work environment as well as their satisfaction with their current job. Importance ratings were again combined into two composites while job satisfaction ratings were factor analyzed and three factors, differentiated along hygiene versus motivator lines, emerged. Personality traits again accounted for a small percentage of the total variance both in importance ratings and in levels of job satisfaction. It is concluded that personality does not have a strong or consistent influence either on what individuals perceive as important in their work environment or on their levels of job satisfaction.     

Review

Book reviewed in this article:
David Ray Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts     

From Noosphere to Theosphere: Cyclotrons, Cyberspace, and Teilhard's Vision of Cosmic Love

Two theme–setting quotations introduce this essay—that of Yeats's falcon, deaf to the falconer's call, adrift in space above the blood–dimmed tide, counterpoised to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's call to abandon old nationalistic prejudices and build the earth. With primary references to the thought of Teilhard, along with, among others, to Ewert Cousins, Andrew M. Greeley, Karl Jaspers, Marshall McLuhan, Ilya Prigogine, Karl Rahner, Leonard Swidler, David Tracy, and Alfred North Whitehead, I argue that the most crucial intellectual paradigm shift of the twenty–first century will challenge humanity to take the turn from uncritical attachment to rigid absolutism or atomistic fragmentation toward a sense of open–ended, off–centered centeredness and fluid connections—from a static to a dynamic model of reality. Central to my argument is the Teilhardian reinterpretation of the Christian metaphors of creation, fall, incarnation, salvation, and the eschaton in the evolutionary terms of the emergence of cosmic consciousness from the chrysalis of the world of the past—from chaos to order, from biosphere via noosphere to theosphere. Facilitated by the exponential growth of populations, collaborative research, science, technology, and global communication (most dramatically manifested by the Internet), this emergent understanding of what it means to be human can, first, foster the awareness that in humanity evolution has become conscious of itself, and then, gradually, precipitate the formation of “the global village” (the mystical body of Christ), as respectful dialogue replaces diatribe and the dualistic pugilism of Samuel Huntington's “Clash of Civilizations” is gradually transformed into a nonadversarial mentality that values shared humanity and a common purpose. Thus, eons hence, empowered by love–energy, the transmutation of the human into the ultra–human can take the ultimate quantum leap into a yet higher dimension where spirit/energy is no longer in need of flesh/mass, and Earth can be safely left behind.     

Creating in Our Own Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Image of God

There is remarkable convergence between twentieth-century interpretations of the image of God ( imago Dei ), what it means for human beings to be created in God's image, and approaches toward creating in our own image in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Both fields have viewed the intersection between God and humanity or humanity and computers in terms of either (1) a property or set of properties such as intelligence, (2) the functions we engage in or are capable of, or (3) the relationships we establish and maintain. Each of these three approaches reflects a different understanding of what stands at the core of our humanity. Functional and relational approaches were common in the late twentieth century, with a functional understanding the one most accepted by society at large. A relational view, however, gives new insights into human dignity in a computer age as well as new approaches to AI research.     

Protecting God from Science and Technology: How Religious Criticisms of Biotechnologies Backfire

Many religious critics argue that biotechnology (such as cloning and genetic engineering) intrudes on God's domain, or plays God, or revolts against God. While some of these criticisms are standard complaints about human hubris, I argue that some of the recent criticism represents a "Promethean" concern, in which believers unreflectively seem to fear that science and technology are actually replicating or stealing God's special deity–defining powers. These criticisms backfire theologically, because they diminish God, portraying God as an anthropomorphic superbeing whose relevance and special nature are increasingly rivaled by human power.     

Certainty and Uncertainty: The Two Faces of the Hindsight Bias

“Hindsight Bias” is a person's tendency, after learning about the actual outcome of a situation or the correct answer to a question, to distort a previous judgment in the direction of this new information. In the literature, hindsight bias has been mostly discussed as an inevitable result of a “judgment under uncertainty.” We think that the hindsight bias is due to memorial as well as inferential processes: Whereas certainty about the recollection is memorial and concerns the recollective experience, certainty at the time of the judgment is inferential and concerns the individual's metaknowledge (“I know that I knew that”). In two experiments participants' feelings of certainty were measured indirectly (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996) by giving participants the option of leaving those questions unanswered about which they felt uncertain. This free-report option was offered to half of the participants in the first estimate phase (concerning time of judgment) and to the second half in the memory phase (concerning the recollective experience). At the end of the session, participants were presented again with the questions they had skipped and were now required to answer them. This procedure allowed us to compare the amount of hindsight bias for the skipped, uncertain items to the spontaneously answered, certain ones. Both experiments demonstrated that the hindsight bias is a result of the interaction of both uncertainty and certainty.     

Cross-fertilization versus transmission: Recommendations for developing a bidirectional approach to psychotherapy dissemination research

Psychotherapy researchers are increasingly engaged in collaborations with clinical practitioners and mental health administrators. Each party brings its own perspectives, values, and agendas to bear in these encounters. Viable research—practice collaborations depend on understanding and negotiating some of the tensions in these relationships. In this article, we discuss the contexts that prevail for various participants in a psychotherapy dissemination study as well as the values, goals, costs, and benefits related to research participation. This article is a collaboration among the researchers, mental health administrators, therapists, and clients involved in an ongoing treatment dissemination study. Our recommendations for research—practice collaborations are based on our experiences and dialogues over the course of this study.     

交流 诠释 求同尊异——关于生命伦理学的跨文化研究

生命伦理学的跨文化研究,重在诠释不同文化传统伦理观念的历史轨迹,尊重道德的多元性,同时寻求共同点,以促进人类之间的合作和交流。不同伦理思想的交流中形成的某种共识和趋同,是社会共荣和医学发展的需要。否定伦理观念的多元和把伦理观念多元绝对化,都无益于人类健康事业的繁荣。