A Feminist Interpretation of Hume on Testimony

Hume is usually taken to have an evidentialist account of testimonial belief: one is justified in believing what someone says if one has empirical evidence that they have been reliable in the past. This account is impartialist: such evidence is required no matter who the person is, or what relations she may have to you. I, however, argue that Hume has another account of testimony, one grounded in sympathy. This account is partialist, in that empirical evidence is not required in order for one to be justified in believing some of the assertions of one's friends.     

The Qualified Pronoun Count as a Measure of Change in Family Psychotherapy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the original Multiple Family Psychotherapy group at Georgetown University, Department of Psychiatry. The author, a clinician, used the technique of content analysis of recorded interviews and developed a “change ratio” which is called the “qualified pronoun count.” Although “therapeutic improvement” is not the main goal of the treatment strategy under research here, ordinarily anyone that exhibits the kind of change in differentiation from “family ego mass” ( 1 ) reflected in this study, also experiences diminution or remission of symptoms. Preliminary findings indicate this new system of observing change is useful in determining variations in differentiation, and that these families did change.     

Assessment of Religious Beliefs Form

Religion may be a source of spiritual strength or a source of conflict and guilt. This article outlines the importance of assessing the religious beliefs of clients for treatment purposes and provides a format for the counselor to utilize. Because counselors may be unaware of their clients' individual perspectives, it is important to evaluate a clients' belief system from a holistic perspective during the intake process.     

BRIDGING DIFFERENCE THROUGH DIALOGUE: A CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE

Differences in culture invariably underpin the communication failures and misunderstandings that lead to social conflict and dissension. In contemporary organizations, for example, conflicts in values between different occupational groups have the potential to create significant organizational dysfunction. Equally, however, bridging between these conflicts may present an opportunity for organizational learning and insight. Dialogue provides a means of bridging between such differences, but it is notoriously difficult to implement. In this article, we explore the potential of Personal Construct Theory as a way into dialogue. We illustrate our argument with the results of a workshop that involved senior managers and clinicians from a large public hospital.     

“The Friendly Clergy”: Characteristics and Referral

Among the recommendations possible in assessment of clients' religious beliefs is that of referral to the “friendly clergy.” This article delineates guidelines for referral as well as ideal characteristics of that spiritual professional.     

Mothers' and fathers' negative responsibility attributions and perceptions of children's problem behavior

Parents' negative responsibility attributions about their child's misbehavior are related to a perception that the child has more behavior problems. This study used a dyadic framework to explore how mothers' and fathers' attributions relate to their own perceptions and to their partner's perceptions of the child's externalizing problems. Participants included 102 couples interviewed when children were 7 years old. Results confirmed that mothers reported more externalizing behavior problems in their children than did fathers, and fathers of boys reported more child behavior problems than fathers of girls. Dyadic analyses suggested that parents' negative responsibility attributions of the child's behavior were associated with greater perceptions of child externalizing problems on behalf of parents and their partners.     

Intergroup Discrimination Involving Negative Outcomes and Self‐Esteem

Two studies examined the link between intergroup discrimination involving negative outcomes (i.e., removal of positive resources and allocation of noxious resources), global self‐esteem (GSE), and collective self‐esteem (CSE). Study 1 found that New Zealanders who took away more positive resources from out‐group than in‐group members experienced enhanced CSE, but not GSE. These findings were replicated in Study 2, with respect to the allocation of noxious resources (i.e., white noise). New Zealanders' GSE and CSE assessed prior to the allocation of noxious resources were unrelated to the subsequent allocation of white noise. The data are interpreted to indicate that intergroup discrimination involving negative outcomes leads to enhanced CSE. However, neither GSE nor CSE predict such discrimination.