Successive, simultaneous, and anticipatory contrast in the consumption of saccharin solutions

Contrast effects were obtained in rats in the consumption of saccharin solutions in three different paradigms. Degree of negative contrast varied as a function of concentration disparity, but not equally in the three procedures. Successive negative contrast occurred following shifts from 0.15% to either 0.075% or 0.05% saccharin but did not occur following shifts to 0.10% or 0.125% saccharin. Some degree of simultaneous contrast was obtained with all four concentration disparities. Anticipatory contrast, where the intake of the first substance is suppressed by a more preferred second substance, occurred only in the case of the 0.05%-0.15% difference in concentrations. It was suggested that the several contrast paradigms engage somewhat different psychological processes differentially involving emotional, sensory, and associative mechanisms, but all lead to behavior based on relative value. A modification of Toates's (1981) incentive model of ingestive behavior was suggested to incorporate relativity effects based on both associative and nonassociative factors in the consumption of both nutritive and nonnutritive substances.     

Moving the debate forward in small steps: A reply to Morrison

Morrison (1996) criticised the authors' 1995 evaluation on three main grounds: that it was too narrow, that it was circular, and that the model evaluated was contradictory. It is argued that the narrow focus was deliberate, that the methodology was standard and logical, and that the framework evaluated was coherent. Although the authors agree with Morrison in some respects, e.g. on the value of variety of methodology, there seems to be a basic difference in view on scientific method. The authors see research as (mainly) small steps which are erratic but generally cumulative; Morrison appears to favour grand-scale, multi-purpose research.     

Ethics education in science and engineering: The case of animal research

Conclusion The past one hundred fifty years of debate over the use of animals in research and testing has been characterized mainly byad hominem attacks and on uncritical rejection of the other sides’ arguments. In the classroom, it is important to avoid repeating exercises in public relations and to demand sound scholarship. This paper is a modification of material originally included in the handbook which accompanied the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Seminar “Teaching Ethics in Science and Engineering”, 10–11 February 1993.     

Effects of a Peer Engagement Program on Socially Withdrawn Children with a History of Maltreatment

Children with a history of child maltreatment often have limited social interactions with other children and adults. This study examined the effects of a Peer Engagement Program, consisting of peer mentoring and social skills training with positive reinforcement, in three children with low levels of oral and social interaction. A multiple baseline, single-subject research design was used to test whether introduction of the intervention was associated with increased, directly observed oral interaction and engagement in social activities with peers and adults. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS) were administered before and after intervention. All children showed increased levels of oral and social interaction and improved scores on the SSRS and the CBCL.     

Hegel and self‐actualization

Abstract

Hegel says that mind develops through three phases, which he calls soul, consciousness, and mind. By referring to these three phases as the Primary level, the Social level and the Realizing level, it makes it clearer that they link up with thoroughly familiar phenomena in the field of psychotherapy and with contemporary life generally. In fact, they give a new angle on the whole process of self‐actualization, which throws light on many topics in humanistic psychology.     

How to blow the Whistle and still have a career afterwards

Filing charges of scientific misconduct can be a risky and dangerous endeavor. This article presents rules of conduct to follow when considering whether to report perceived misconduct, and a set of step-by-step procedures for responsible whistleblowing that describe how to do so once the decision to report misconduct has been made. This advice is framed within the university setting, and may not apply fully in industrial settings. Ms. Gunsalus, an attorney, has been responsible for a wide range of compliance issues and academic policy matters at her university including responding to allegations of scientific misconduct. She served on the United States Commission on Research Integrity and spent six years on the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, four of them as chair. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do About Whistleblowing” held during the Annual Meeting of the AAAS, Seattle, Washington, 15 February, 1997.     

EPIPHANY PHILOSOPHERS: AFTERWORD

Being a theist makes a difference, but not so much to what propositions we assent to, nor to an expanded ontology of spiritual entities. Rather, it is concerned with what commitments we enter into, and involves a participatory engagement with a broader reality then we might have supposed was possible. Embodied practices are a crucial part of the contemplative path, which draws on the wisdom of the body. This leads on to a “labor of culture.” Our present culture is not obviously as secular as supposed to be, but what has now become sacred is a strong sense of the individual ego, around which many ethical and political commitments are built, and which sits uneasily with our widely accepted mechanistic view of life. The crucial challenge to artificial intelligence is whether it can find ways of enhancing the mutual recognition that is crucial to the ethical life.     

Assessing the quality of child investigative interviewing in the Netherlands

Using evidence‐based guidelines to interview children is an important means to obtain complete and accurate accounts. In the current study, we examined the quality of child investigative interviewing in the Netherlands. To examine this, we compared the Dutch Scenario Model with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Protocol and interviews from countries that did not follow a specific protocol. Our principal result was that Dutch child interviewers rarely asked recommended open prompts that are known to elicit detailed and accurate testimonies from children. Furthermore, we found that the scenario model contained the highest number of directive questions compared with interviews from other countries. Our findings show that the Dutch Scenario Model is not well aligned with current research‐based recommendations for interviewing children.