Generalized imitative affection: Relationship to prior kinds of imitation training

Two experiments utilizing first- and second-grade Canadian children showed that generalized imitative physical affection was most facilitated by prior imitative physical contact training (as opposed to verbal contact training) when the object of the affection was either a toy teddy bear, Experiment I, or an adult human, Experiment II.Additional findings from Experiment I showed that generalized imitative physical aggression was equally facilitated by imitative physical contact training and that punishment, as well as extinction operations applied to training imitations, resulted in suppression of all generalized imitations with no differential effect of punishment on affection or aggression being noted.The lack of any persisting imitations in a control group in Experiment II, which received noncontingent reinforcement but instructional prompting for training imitations, suggested that instructional control of imitation responses was initially weak and that the contingency between reinforcement and training imitations was critical for continued occurrence of training imitations and any occurrence of generalized physical affection imitations.     

Still servants of work? Exploring the role of the critic in work and organizational psychology

This paper situates the burgeoning movement of critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP) within a broader and ongoing effort to rehabilitate work in a broken society. Drawing upon Loren Baritz's seminal critique of the field, The Servants of Power, the argument is made that while CWOP scholars clearly militate against pandering to the “power elite,” they nonetheless risk becoming servants of work, defined as the propensity to perpetuate work's outsized psychological significance. To support such an argument, a core yet neglected theme in Baritz's book is revisited, that of the role of the critic, to demonstrate how CWOP scholars might navigate their own entanglements with servitude while at the same time contest work's symbolic power. The paper also addresses the charge of intellectual elitism that can result from holding such a position of “critical distance” not just from mainstream scholarship, but from work itself. Implications for the future of CWOP are discussed.