Happiness and despair on the catwalk: Need satisfaction,well-being,and personality adjustment among fashion models

According to self-determination theory, well-being and healthy personality development depend on the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence. However, various contextual features can interfere with need satisfaction and undermine well-being. We hypothesized that fashion models, who are often valued for superficial reasons (i.e., their looks) and who may not have regular opportunities to cultivate deep relationships or exercise personal control on the job, might experience lower psychological need satisfaction, less well-being, and less optimal personality adjustment. Two studies were conducted in which professional fashion models (N?=?56 in Study 1; N?=?35 in Study 2) were compared to approximately equally large groups of non-models. Fashion models reported slightly lower need satisfaction and well-being but greater personality maladjustment (personality disorder features). Mediation analyses in Study 1 suggested that the lower well-being among models was explained via unfulfilled basic needs. These findings further substantiate the importance of basic need satisfaction for well-being and optimal adjustment.     

THEOLOGY AND PHYSICS FORTY YEARS LATER

Abstract. Almost forty years later I look back on a 1966 article on theology and physics by Sanford Brown and my response published with it. I reflect on his hope that theological seminaries would give attention to the methods used in scientific inquiry. I compare our comments with subsequent thought on three issues: (1) the role of models in science and religion; (2) the relation of wholes to parts in physics and other sciences and the debate over reductionism and emergence; and (3) the implications of quantum physics for theology, including the possibility of divine action at the quantum level.     

Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation

The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges (such as the relationship between Toulmin warrants and their counterparts in traditional diagrams) represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others (such as how to allow Toulmin diagrams to be recursive) are diagrammatic versions of questions that have already been addressed in artificial intelligence models of argument. But there are further questions (such as the relationships between refutations, rebuttals and undercutters, and the roles of multiple warrants) that are posed as a specific result of examining the diagram inter-translation problem. These three classes of problems are discussed. To the first class are addressed solutions based on engineering pragmatism; to the second class, are addressed solutions drawn from the appropriate literature; and to the third class, fuller exploration is offered justifying the approaches taken in developing solutions that offer both pragmatic utility and theoretical interest. Finally, these solutions are explored briefly in the context of the Araucaria system, showing the ways in which analysts can tackle arguments either using one diagrammatic style or another, or even a combination of the two.     

Trajectories of Parenting Processes and Adolescent Substance Use: Reciprocal Effects

Drawing on transactional theories of child development, we assessed bidirectional links between trajectories of adolescent substance use and parenting processes from early through mid adolescence. Hierarchical generalized models estimated trajectories for 3,317 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, exploring both between- and within-individual effects. Between individuals, adolescents reporting more regular family activities and greater father and mother knowledge of friends and teachers experienced lower levels of substance use through mid adolescence. Similarly, adolescents with more frequent substance use reported lower family activities, father knowledge, and mother knowledge, though these differences dissipated over time. More conservative within-individual differences indicated a prospective protective effect of family activities, with increases in adolescent participation in family activities predicting later declines in substance use. Results support the central importance of engagement in regular family activities, and suggest the need for further exploration of transactional processes between parents and children in the development of risk behaviors.     

简单结构刺激非规则特征突显条件下的样例效应

用变化了的Allen和Brooks的实验范式,采用2(学习轮次:5轮、10轮)×2(项目类型:旧项目、新项目)×2(项目匹配性质:正向匹配、反向匹配)混合实验设计,研究对4个特征刺激分类时非规则特征突显条件下的样例效应。结果发现,无论是错误率还是反应时都取得了明显的样例效应,但是学习时间的影响不明显。     

社会认知中的样例激活效应与内-外群体效应

采用信号检测论技术,以人格词单记忆为实验任务,探讨社会认知过程中样例激活效应与内-外群体效应对记忆过程的干扰作用.实验结果表明,(1)样例激活与群体范畴的交互效应对社会信息加工过程存在显著干扰作用.(2)与外群体相比,内群体的信息加工更不易受到干扰;与积极样例特质相比,消极他相关样例特质的信息加工更不易受到干扰.(3)在加工内群体成员信息而激活的是反面样例时,被试的判断标准最严.     

Limited information estimation and testing of discretized multivariate normal structural models

Discretized multivariate normal structural models are often estimated using multistage estimation procedures. The asymptotic properties of parameter estimates, standard errors, and tests of structural restrictions on thresholds and polychoric correlations are well known. It was not clear how to assess the overall discrepancy between the contingency table and the model for these estimators. It is shown that the overall discrepancy can be decomposed into a distributional discrepancy and a structural discrepancy. A test of the overall model specification is proposed, as well as a test of the distributional specification (i.e., discretized multivariate normality). Also, the small sample performance of overall, distributional, and structural tests, as well as of parameter estimates and standard errors is investigated under conditions of correct model specification and also under mild structural and/or distributional misspecification. It is found that relatively small samples are needed for parameter estimates, standard errors, and structural tests. Larger samples are needed for the distributional and overall tests. Furthermore, parameter estimates, standard errors, and structural tests are surprisingly robust to distributional misspecification. This research was supported by the Department of Universities, Research and Information Society (DURSI) of the Catalan Government, and by grants BSO2000-0661 and BSO2003-08507 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology.     

Belief–logic conflict resolution in syllogistic reasoning: Inspection-time evidence for a parallel-process model

An experiment is reported examining dual-process models of belief bias in syllogistic reasoning using a problem complexity manipulation and an inspection-time method to monitor processing latencies for premises and conclusions. Endorsement rates indicated increased belief bias on complex problems, a finding that runs counter to the “belief-first” selective scrutiny model, but which is consistent with other theories, including “reasoning-first” and “parallel-process” models. Inspection-time data revealed a number of effects that, again, arbitrated against the selective scrutiny model. The most striking inspection-time result was an interaction between logic and belief on premise-processing times, whereby belief – logic conflict problems promoted increased latencies relative to non-conflict problems. This finding challenges belief-first and reasoning-first models, but is directly predicted by parallel-process models, which assume that the outputs of simultaneous heuristic and analytic processing streams lead to an awareness of belief – logic conflicts than then require time-consuming resolution.     

What do computer models of cognition explain: a reply to Gobet

The differences between Gobet’s views and ours call attention to some points concerning the argumentative status of computational models. If we have two fundamentally different models which reasonably accurately simulate a phenomenon, we must ask, what is the argumentative status of the models in psychological terms. Moreover, if it is possible to present different models of same phenomena, what is the general argumentative power of models in psychology? As the kind of differences between our views and the ones of Gobet’s are common in modelling, we briefly call attention to these foundational issues in our paper.