Is I Guaranteed to Refer?

Abstract: One claim about I , regularly made and almost universally endorsed, is that uses of the term are logically guaranteed to refer successfully (if they refer at all). The claim is only rarely formulated perspicuously or argued for. Such obscurity helps disguise the fact that those who profess to advance the claim actually turn out to support not a logical guarantee at all but merely high security through fortunate coincidence. This is not surprising. For we have no good reason to accept the claim – granted, any use of I is apt to refer successfully; but that can be explained by pragmatic features of its use. And we have some reason to reject the claim – it is notoriously difficult to see how genuine reference and guaranteed success do not exclude each other when considered as properties of the logic of any term.     

Training Observers to Detect Deception Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal

It was predicted that trained observers would detect deception more accurately than untrained observers. More specifically, it was predicted that the highest deception detection accuracy would be found among trained observers judging the veracity of low self-monitors and unrehearsed liars, whereas the lowest detection accuracy would be found among untrained observers judging the veracity of high self-monitors and rehearsed deceivers. It also was hypothesized that the discrepancy between observers‘actual ability to detect deception and their certainty in the accuracy of their judgments would be smaller for trained observers than for untrained observers. Observers trained to detect deception used six behavioral cues based on research by deTurck and Miller (1985): (a) message duration, (b) response latency, (c) adaptors, (d) pauses, (e) nonfluencies, and (f) hand gestures. Results confirmed both hypotheses.     

Local Opposition to the Construction of a Nuclear Power Station: Differential Salience of Impacts1

This study examined attitudes among 290 residents of three villages in South-West England toward proposals to build a nuclear power station nearby. Respondents were split into four groups according to whether they were neutral or in favor of a new power station either locally or elsewhere in the UK (Group PN), against one locally but neutral or pro elsewhere (LO), or moderately (MO) or extremely (XO) against a new power station both locally and elsewhere. The perceived impact of a nuclear power station on local life was assessed by 30 items. The PN group expected most benefit or least damage on all 30 items. On a majority of items the mean ratings of the LO group resembled those of the XO's more than did those of the MO's. A stepwise discriminant analysis yielded two interpretable functions. The first reflected a trend over the groups in the order PN-LO-MO-XO and was marked particularly by concern with impact on personal peace of mind. The second fuction discriminated the LO's from the other groups, suggesting that they were relatively less concerned with specifically nuclear risks, but more concerned with environmental conservation.     

The effects of contextual information and gender on the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility

Council, Kirsch, and Hafner (1986) obtained empirical support for the hypothesis that significant correlations between questionnaire measures of absorption and hypnotic susceptibility are an artifact of subjects' beliefs about their own hypnotizability. We tested this hypothesis in a two-session experiment. During Session 1, subjects completed questionnaire measures of absorption, mystical experience, daydreaming frequency, and paranormal beliefs. During Session 2, subjects were tested for hypnotic susceptibility. Subjects were also exposed to one of three information manipulations: They were told about hypnotic testing either before or after filling out the questionnaires or were not told about hypnotic testing. The information manipulation moderated the prediction of susceptibility by the questionnaire measures for women, but not for men. For women, scores on the absorption questionnaire predicted susceptibility only when subjects were informed about hypnotic testing. In the told-after condition, this effect generalized to all of the remaining questionnaire measures. For men, none of the questionnaires was a reliable predictor of susceptibility.     

Mothers' & fathers' explanations of observed interactions with their children

Mothers and fathers were asked via an open-ended interview technique to explain specific interactions with their children that had been noted during a period of family observation in the home. Explanations were obtained for behavior in five interactional contexts (e.g., interactions involving discipline and interactions encouraging the child to be independent). The explanations were classified first to determine the extent to which they referred to what might have been actual thoughts at the time of the behavior. Second, they were content analysed to determine how much parents perceived themselves as responding to the child, versus how much they presented their behavior as arising from their own dispositions, purposes, and experiences. Results showed that most of the explanations did not contain what could be considered conscious cognitions at the time of the behavior. This suggests parents might have been responding automitically in the situation. Also, parents did not perceive their behavior as being mainly in response to the child. Instead they primarily saw themselves as the agents of their own actions. The latter trend varied in degree according to the interactional context. Mothers seemed more child centered in their explanations than fathers. Implications are examined for future research on links between parental cognition and behavior, and for the methods adopted to study parental cognitions. Questions are raised about the extent to which parents planfully determine their behavior and the extent to which they are aware of the reasons for their behavior.