Are economic conditions related to nonnormative life satisfaction development? Evaluating the relative impact of economic conditions,personality, and subjective health

This study examined the relative contribution of psychological and socioeconomic resources to explaining qualitative individual differences in life satisfaction development. We used growth mixture modeling and a cohort‐sequential design to investigate life satisfaction development from ages 25 to 65, in a nationally representative panel (the Socioeconomic Panel). Eighty‐three percent of the participants experienced stability in life satisfaction. In a subgroup of individuals (10%), life satisfaction declined. This subgroup lived under less favorable economic conditions and reported downward moves on an index of socioeconomic status. In another subgroup (7%), life satisfaction was low at age 25 and increased up to age 65. This group was also socioeconomically disadvantaged but scored higher on adaptive personality traits and experienced upward social mobility. Generally, personality traits explained level differences in life satisfaction better than economic conditions. However, economic conditions explained nonnormative life satisfaction development better than generalized control beliefs and the Big Five traits.     

Nausea During Pregnancy: Relation to Early Childhood Temperament and Behavior Problems at Twelve Years

Associations between maternal nausea during pregnancy and child behavioral outcomes were investigated in a large birth cohort. Generally, 2nd- and 3rd-trimester nausea were more predictive of child outcomes than 1st-trimester nausea. Children whose mothers reported nausea in middle or late pregnancy had lower sensory thresholds and higher levels of activity and emotional intensity in infancy and were reported to be lower in task persistence at age 5. At age 12, these children were viewed by teachers as more careless with their school work and as having more attentional and learning problems.     

Champ et effets de la négation argumentative: contre-argumentation et mise en cause

An argument can be taken as an operation of justification or as the product of this operation. But what about a counter-argument? This article is based on the hypothesis that there exists an operation of argumentative negation, which is both the argumentative and the negative equivalent of the operation of justification. Justification and argumentative negation necessarily act on assertions, for they are active at the level of the epistemic modalities of statements. As an operation, a counter-argument can thus be described, as the application of an argumentative negation; as a product, it can be described as an argument the conclusion of which shows traces of negative modality. Two uses of argumentative negation are distinguished here: counter-argumentation and calling into question. The former can lead only to assertive conclusive statements, but the latter can also lead to directives or commissives. This leads the authors to introduce the notion of pseudo-argument, besides those of argument and counter-argument. It is shown in particular that when a pseudo-argument is rejected, argumentative negation has the effect of making evident an underlying argument. With respect to the latterit functions as a counter-argumentation, whereas with respect to the illocutionary act accomplished by the conclusive statement, it functions as a calling into question of a condition of satisfaction for this act. This article also defines certain characteristics of argument, proposes criteria for identifying argumentative negation in polemical conversations, and distinguishes four modes of counter-argumentation.     

Should Religious Naturalists Promote a Naturalistic Religion?

Religious naturalism refers here to a view of reality, and it will be contrasted with versions of supernaturalism and of atheistic naturalism. Naturalistic religion refers to certain varieties of religion, especially some inspired by the universality of science and the need for a global ethics. In this essay I explicate why a religious naturalist need not advocate a naturalistic religion. Rather, a religious naturalist can build upon the heritage of religious traditions and be open to, but at the same time be agnostic about, the idea of a nonnatural ground of reality . The religious naturalism I defend has been criticized from various directions: one reviewer in this journal considered it too much indebted to the traditions, and hence "reactionary" and supernaturalistic; another considered it too minimalist in its religion ("virtually nonexistent") as a consequence of the preference for a too sober version of naturalism. My distinction between religious naturalism and naturalistic religion may answer some of these objections.     

Rat defensive behavior: burying noxious food.

In Experiment 1, rats living in chambers containing bedding material were injected with a toxicosis-producing dose of lithium chloride shortly after their initial taste of sweetened condensed milk. They consumed no additional milk and used the bedding to bury the spout through which the milk had been delivered, although they did not bury a concurrently available water spout. In another control condition, rats did not bury a spout containing a novel solution (saccharin) not paired with toxicosis. In Experiment 2, rats did not bury a milk spout until milk consumption was followed by toxicosis. In Experiment 3, rats buried a spout containing Tabasco pepper sauce but not a concurrently available water spout. Thus, burying the food source appears to be an integral component of the rat's defensive reaction to noxious food.