Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Fear Questionnaire phobia subscale items in two normative samples

Normative data for the Fear Questionnaire (Marks & Mathews, 1979), a popular self-report instrument measuring phobic concerns, were collected from both a community and a collegiate sample. The covariation and internal consistency of the blood-injury phobia (BI), social phobia (SO), and agoraphobia (AG) subscales were assessed in each sample, and the factor structure of the items from these three subscales was examined. Results indicated that, in general, community subjects reported more phobic concerns than did collegiate subjects, and females reported greater phobic concerns than did males. Results from confirmatory factor analyses suggest that the three factors of BI, SO, and AG did not emerge from either data set. Follow-up exploratory factor analyses did identify the general factors of blood-injury phobia and agoraphobia. Normative data from the present study are compared to those obtained previously, and directions for future research are provided.     

Values in University–Industry Collaborations: The Case of Academics Working at Universities of Technology

Science and Engineering Ethics - In the applied sciences and in engineering there is often a significant overlap between work at universities and in industry. For the individual scholar, this may...     

Nuclear Power is Neither Right Nor Wrong: The Case for a Tertium Datur in the Ethics of Technology

The debate over the civilian use of nuclear power is highly polarised. We argue that a reasonable response to this deep disagreement is to maintain that advocates of both camps should modify their positions. According to the analysis we propose, nuclear power is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong, but rather right and wrong to some degree. We are aware that this non-binary analysis of nuclear power is controversial from a theoretical point of view. Utilitarians, Kantians, and other moral theorists make sharp, binary distinctions between right and wrong acts. However, an important argument speaking in favour of our non-binary analysis is that it better reflects our considered intuitions about the ethical trade-offs we face in discussions of nuclear power. The aim of this article is to make this argument sharp by explaining how it can be rendered compatible with, and supported by, the Capability Approach, which is quickly becoming one of the most influential frameworks for thinking about human development.