Mind and Anti-Mind: Why Thinking Has No Functional Definition

Functionalism is perhaps the most prominent theory of mind today. The central thesis of functionalism is that the standard mental relations (or properties or states) are uniquely determined by their causal roles in functioning organisms. That is, the principles of psychology specify the characteristic way that (behavioral or physiological) input, the standard mental relations such as belief and desire, and (behavioral or physiological) output are causally arranged; and the central idea of functionalism is that, e.g., belief's characteristic causal role can be fulfilled by exactly one relation-namely, belief itself. Clearly, then, the most direct way to refute functionalism would be to show that there are relations that demonstrably differ from the standard mental relations and that, nevertheless, could fulfill the same causal role as those mental relations.     

PREDICTING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FROM COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES: A MULTIPLE INDICATOR MODEL

This study examines the effects of certain communication variables (member integration, boundary communication, environmental uncertainty, and system autonomy) on organizational effectiveness. While often discussed in the literature, these variables have not been precisely defined. As a result, a multiple indicator model using maximum likelihood estimates for each variable was created. Interviews with managers from 82 different organizations from a variety of industries are used to test the model. The results suggest that member integration and environmental uncertainty, when the latter is mediated by boundary communication, provide an excellent predictor of organizational effectiveness (R= .64). The results are discussed in light of the proposed theory along with implications for future research using intertypical sampling methods and LISREL analysis.     

KIRKPATRICK'S LEVELS OF TRAINING CRITERIA: THIRTY YEARS LATER

Kirkpatrick's model (1959a, 1959b, 1960a, 1960b) of training evaluation criteria has had widespread and enduring popularity. This model proposed four "levels" of training evaluation criteria: reactions, learning, behavior, and results. Three problematic assumptions of the model may be identified: (1) The levels are arranged in ascending order of information provided. (2) The levels are causally linked. (3) The levels are positively intercorrelated. This article examines the validity of these assumptions, the frequency of each level in published evaluation studies, correlations from the literature in regard to Assumptions 2 and 3, and implications for the researcher and training manager.     

WAGE SURVEYS: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS ABOUT THE "MARKET WAGE"

The comparable worth controversy has generated much discussion about the appropriate valuation of job worth. To date, academic inquiries into the measurement of job worth have focused primarily on job evaluation; however, recent court decisions suggest that market wages are a more compelling indicator of job worth than are job evaluation results. This paper examines the construct of "market wage" and the process by which it is measured (wage surveys). It is argued that both the construct and the measurement of the market wage have not been sufficiently examined by either academics or the courts. Implications for pay administration and future research are noted.     

Revisiting the Notion of Hierarchy

The traditional definition of hierarchy in terms of power has rendered the image of the hierarchical therapist a fit subject for constructionist critiques. This essay uses an alternative definition of hierarchy, cast in temporal and developmental terms, as the basis for a revised understanding of the role of hierarchy in the therapeutic process. It is argued that when therapy is constructed as a “framing-developing hierarchy,” rather than as a “power hierarchy,” then constructionist aspirations to create a therapy that is nonjudgmental, nonpathologizing, and noncontrolling are realized.     

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of FACES-III: Family Adaptability and Cohesion

Research on earlier versions of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) has ostensibly shown that the scales lack discriminant and convergent validity (23). However, these studies have defined convergence as agreement between family members or as agreement between family members and family therapists. Such definitions confound real differences between respondents' perceptions of the family with the notion of convergent validity. In the current study, we take a different approach to construct validity. Multiple measures of family adaptability, cohesion, and talkativeness were administered to two family members (insiders) and two significant others (outsiders). The two insiders' responses were averaged together, as were the two outsiders' responses. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we demonstrated that family adaptability, cohesion, and talkativeness are distinct traits, and that the different sources of information about these traits, including FACES-III (24), have convergent validity.