Mobilization of Cognitive Resources and the Generation Effect

The generation effect refers to the memory advantage of words that have been generated rather than read. Such a read-generate comparison confounds qualitative task differences and raises methodological problems. A revised methodology is proposed circumventing these problems in that the encoding task is held constant and all stimuli have to be generated, but the degree of generativeness (i.e. the amount of cueing) is varied. In Experiment 1, 1, the (refined version of the) generation effect is demonstrated in a within-subjects design; with increasing generation activity left to the subject, free recall performance increases. No effect is obtained for degree of target masking. The same finding is replicated and shown to be independent of self-paced study time when generative activity is manipulated between subjects (Experiment 2) or within subjects (Experiment 3). As all learning trials involve generation, encoding time is controlled statistically, and free recall is used as a measure of memory, this refined generation effect cannot be explained as an artifact of selective attention or elaboration. Rather, generative activity seems to increase the mobilization of cognitive resources. This motivational account is supported by Experiment 4 showing an enhanced generation effect for positive mood.     

A COMPARISON OF PEER-DIRECTED AND TEACHER-DIRECTED EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW TRAINING FOR MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS

Interview skills deficits may limit employment prospects of mentally retarded adults. Although numerous papers highlight the importance of interview skills, few have validated effective strategies for use with mentally retarded persons. Further, there has been a lack of research contrasting rival interview skills training strategies. The present study was conducted with two mentally retarded young adults. It contrasted peer-directed instruction, in which both participants were equally deficient in the target skills, with teacher-directed instruction. Results of the investigation indicated that instruction, rehearsal, and feedback may be effective strategies regardless of who provides instruction. Comparisons of teacher-directed and peer-directed instruction indicated little or no difference in the effectiveness of the two procedures. However, the peer-directed procedure involved considerably less staff time than did the teacher-directed procedure.     

Partial monotonicity and a new version of the Ramsey test

We introduce two new belief revision axioms: partial monotonicity and consequence correctness. We show that partial monotonicity is consistent with but independent of the full set of axioms for a Gärdenfors belief revision sytem. In contrast to the Gärdenfors inconsistency results for certain monotonicity principles, we use partial monotonicity to inform a consistent formalization of the Ramsey test within a belief revision system extended by a conditional operator. We take this to be a technical dissolution of the well-known Gärdenfors dilemma.In addition, we present the consequential correctness axiom as a new measure of minimal revision in terms of the deductive core of a proposition whose support we wish to excise. We survey several syntactic and semantic belief revision systems and evaluate them according to both the Gärdenfors axioms and our new axioms. Furthermore, our algebraic characterization of semantic revision systems provides a useful technical device for analysis and comparison, which we illustrate with several new proofs.Finally, we have a new inconsistency result, which is dual to the Gärdenfors inconsistency results. Any elementary belief revision system that is consequentially correct must violate the Gärdenfors axiom of strong boundedness (K^*8), which we characterize as yet another monotonicity condition.This work was supported by the McDonnell Douglas Independent Research and Development program.     

Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach

Digressions in argumentative discussion are a kind of failure of relevance. Examination of what actual cases look like reveals several properties of argumentative relevance: (1) The informational relevance of propositions to the truth value of a conclusion should be distinguished from the pragmatic relevance of argumentative acts to the task of resolving a disagreement. (2) Pragmatic irrelevance is a collaborative phenomenon. It does not just short-circuit reasoning; it encourages a failure to take up the demands of an argumentative task. (3) Pragmatic irrelevance can occur not simply by the absence of a connection between what is said and some standpoint in dispute, but also by the presence of a connection between what is said and a competing use of the information. (4) Pragmatic relevance must be accomplished through communicative action.     

TREATING WOMEN AS SEX-OBJECTS

In this paper we have two related aims. First, we aim to present an account of what it is to treat women as sex-objects.¹ Like other philosophical writers in the field, we hold that the central idea in an account of such treatment is the failure to treat women with proper respect in sexual behavior. This idea has been cashed out in terms of using,² and in terms of dehumanization or failure to accord equal rights to freedom and welfare.³ However, we believe that there is a central deficiency in most such philosophical accounts of treating women as sex-objects, namely, a failure to outline in any detail a theory of interpersonal norms so that one can grasp in more concrete terms what it is to avoid treating a woman as a sex-object. We aim to rectify this deficiency by presenting a model of interpersonal norms based on the work of the social psychologist Chris Argyris.⁴     

Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape

This study examined the effects of the victim-perpetrator relationship on college students' attributions of responsibility for rape. In addition, the rape specificity of these attributions was investigated. College females and males read one of six scenarios that depicted a rape or a proposition, and that varied according to the victim-perpetrator relationship (steady dating partners/acquaintances on a first date/strangers). Then they rated seven responsibility attributions for the rape or proposition. Results indicated that most forms of victim responsibility were stronger for the rape and proposition on a date than for the incidents between strangers, and the findings concerning the perpetrator's responsibility were mixed. The pattern of both victim- and perpetrator-responsibility attributions suggests that both a rape and proposition on a date, compared to incidents between strangers, elicit stronger sex role and sexual attributions. Moreover, male subjects, in comparison to female subjects, gave higher ratings to several responsibility attributions, and these, also, are linked to sex role and sexual considerations. Further, the data revealed that only the perpetrator-responsibility attributions were stronger for the rape than the proposition.This research was supported by the University of Connecticut Research Foundation Grant No. 1171-000-22-00215-35-760. The authors thank Laurin Hafner for his help with the data analysis.