Measurement Equivalence of 360°-Assessment Data: Are different raters rating the same constructs?

This study uses data collected using a 360°-assessment instrument to investigate the structural equivalence of 360°-assessment ratings, according to rater type, controlling for organizational level. Data from 533 managers and their raters were employed in the study, which used multi-group structural equations modeling. Issues central to the implementation and use of 360°-assessment data are also considered within the context of current research and practice.     

Assessing potential reinforcement-like effects of brief stimuli unrelated to food reinforcers

It is widely assumed that reinforcers are biologically relevant stimuli, or stimuli that have been associated with biologically relevant stimuli. However, brief, arbitrary stimuli have also been reported to have reinforcement-like effects, despite being unrelated to biologically relevant stimuli like food. The present study explored the potential reinforcement-like effects of brief stimuli across 5 experiments. In Experiments 1 through 4, pigeon subjects responded for food reinforcement and brief stimulus presentations in a 2-component multiple schedule. Neither baseline response rates nor resistance to change during disruption tests were systematically greater in a component with versus without brief stimulus presentations. Increasing the rate and duration of brief stimulus presentations in Experiment 4 did not reveal reinforcement-like effects when compared directly with food. In Experiment 5, pigeons chose between independent terminal links in a concurrent-chains procedure. Across conditions, varying the location, duration, and rate of brief stimulus presentations in the terminal links had no systematic effects on preference. In contrast, varying rates of food reinforcers resulted in large and reliable shifts in preference. Therefore, the present study found no systematic evidence that brief stimuli unrelated to food reliably increase response rates, resistance to change, or preference. These data demonstrate the value of systematic replication, and a behavioral momentum approach to assessing potential reinforcement-like effects.     

Audience Design in Multiparty Conversation

How do speakers design what they say in order to communicate effectively with groups of addressees who vary in their background knowledge of the topic at hand? Prior findings indicate that when a speaker addresses a pair of listeners with discrepant knowledge, that speakers Aim Low, designing their utterances for the least knowledgeable of the two addressees. Here, we test the hypothesis that speakers will depart from an Aim Low approach in order to efficiently communicate with larger groups of interacting partners. Further, we ask whether the cognitive demands of tracking multiple conversational partners' perspectives places limitations on successful audience design. We find that speakers can successfully track information about what up to four of their partners do and do not know in conversation. When addressing groups of 3–4 addressees at once, speakers design language based on the combined knowledge of the group. These findings point to an audience design process that simultaneously represents the perspectives of multiple other individuals and combines these representations in order to design utterances that strike a balance between the different needs of the individuals within the group.     

Grounding: Necessary or Contingent?

Recent interest in the nature of grounding is due in part to the idea that purely modal notions are too coarse‐grained to capture what we have in mind when we say that one thing is grounded in another. Grounding not being purely modal in character, however, is compatible with it having modal consequences. Is grounding a necessary relation? In this article I argue that the answer is ‘yes’ in the sense that propositions corresponding to full grounds modally entail propositions corresponding to what they ground. The argument proceeds upon two substantive principles: the first is that there is a broadly epistemic constraint on grounding, while the second links this constraint with Fine's Aristotelian notion of essence. Many think grounding is necessary in something like the sense specified above, but just why it's necessary is an issue that hasn't been carefully addressed. If my argument is successful, we now know why grounding is necessary.     

Stress in time

The goals of this research were to determine whether speakers adjust the stress patterns of words within sentences to create an alternation between strong and weak beats and to explore whether this rhythmic alternation contributes to the characteristics stress differences between two major lexical categories of English. Two experiments suggested that speakers do alter lexical stress in accordance with rhythmic biases. When speakers produced disyllabic pseudowords in sentence contexts, they were more likely to place stress on the first syllable when the pseudoword was preceded by a weak stress and followed by a strong one than when the strong stress preceded and the weak followed. This occurred both when the pseudowords served as nouns and when they served as verbs. Text analyses further revealed that weakly stressed elements precede nouns more often than verbs, whereas such elements follow verbs more often than nouns. Thus, disyllabic nouns are more likely than disyllabic verbs to occupy contexts biased toward trochaic rhythm, a finding consistent with leftward dominant stress in disyllabic English nouns. The history of stress changes in English nouns and verbs also conforms with the view that rhythmic context may have contributed to the evolution of stress differences. Together, the findings suggest that the citation stress patterns of words may to some degree reflect adaptations of lexical knowledge to conditions of language performance.