Search

Several behavioral scientists have contributed to special issues of the "Decision Science" journal. K. MacCrimmon and J. Siu tackled the significant problem of modeling and measuring and individual decision maker's inevitable trade-offs. The authors find that the choice mode consistently exceeds the equivalence mode in its predictive accuracy. R. Duncan's paper examined possible determinants of the structure of decision units within organization. A. Delbecq studied contextual variables affecting decision making in program planning. Lastly, V. Vroom and A. Jago wrote a paper about decision making as a social process.

While researchers continue to develop their understanding of gender as a complex and multifaceted concept, the detrimental impact of gender-related inequity and social injustice persists. This conceptual paper describes the potential benefits of incorporating Relational Frame Theory (RFT) as a contextual and pragmatic approach to gender. An RFT lens might enhance our understanding of gender as a language-based phenomenon, involving patterns of derived relational responding and rule-governed behavior. Such an understanding might then facilitate the development of assessments and context-sensitive interventions that support flexible and expansive experiences of gender that promote thriving. Despite the potential utility of an RFT approach, RFT has rarely been applied to gender-related concerns. This paper aims to provide a starting point for exploring gender from an RFT perspective, highlight relevant RFT studies, acknowledge limitations of current lines of research, and provide recommendations regarding future research. We hope that the paper will also act as a call to action for contextual behavioral scientists, as well as demonstrate how an RFT perspective might both align with, as well as add to, existing perspectives from other disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recently published paper, Chater and Loewenstein critically elaborate on the differences between interventions that focus on individual behavior ('i-frame'), as opposed to the systems in which health behavior occurs ('s-frame'). They point out that behavioral scientists frequently rely on individual-level interventions, rather than systemic change to improve population health. As individual-level interventions have fallen short of the author's expectations to fix health problems, the authors argue that behavioral scientists should focus more on system-level change. They warn behavioral scientists that by framing disease as an individual problem they hinder real change. We agree with the arguments made by the authors; nevertheless, we propose that bringing underlying causes for the i-frame focus to light would advance their argument. In our commentary, we discuss that neoliberalism might be a reason for the focus on individual interventions in behavioral health sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article announces that the 2012 Fulker Award has been given to three researchers including Mark Adams, James King, and Alex Weiss for their paper "The majority of genetic variation in Orangutan personality and subjective well-being is non-additive" from the Behavior Genetics Association.

Severe congenital impairments in one child will affect the whole family, possibly for a generation if the child remains at home as an adult. Disability acquired in adult life will affect both partners as roles are gained or relinquished. For children this may result in a loss of parenting. The adjustment process to any psychological or personality changes may be very painful, particularly if children have no one outside the family to provide informed support. Acquired illness or disability in children may have enormous consequences for siblings, the health of the parents and the whole fabric of family life, often resulting in family isolation. In some Asian families, the feeling that the extended family unit is self sufficient and able to provide care may conflict with the ideal of increasing independence fostered by the professionals, and limit the possibility of support from social workers or psychologists. The extended family may reduce the need for statutory support. The expectation that care will be provided to old people by their daughters or daughters-in-law may be frustrated if the younger generation of women are disabled or otherwise engaged, resulting in possible family strife or rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New findings from the neurosciences receive much interest for use in the applied field of education. For the past 15 years, neuroeducation and the application of neuroscience knowledge were seen to have promise, but there is presently some lack of progress. The present paper states that this is due to several factors. Neuromyths are still prevalent, and there is a confusion of tongues between the many neurodisciplines and the domains of behavioral and educational sciences. Second, a focus upon cognitive neuroimaging research has yielded findings that are scientifically relevant, but cannot be used for direct application in the classroom. A third factor pertains to the emphasis which has been on didactics and teaching, whereas the promise of neuroeducation for the teacher may lie more on pedagogical inspiration and support. This article states that the most important knowledge and insights have to do with the notion of brain plasticity ; the vision that development is driven by an interaction between a person's biology and the social system. This helps individuals to select and process information, and to adapt to the personal environment. The paper describes how brain maturation and neuropsychological development extend through the important period of adolescence and emergent adulthood. Over this long period, there is a major development of the Executive Functions (EFs) that are essential for both cognitive learning, social behavior and emotional processing and, eventually, personal growth. The paper describes the basic neuroscience knowledge and insights – or "neuroscientific literacy" – that the educational professional should have to understand and appreciate the above-described themes. The authors formulate a proposal for four themes of neuroscience content "that every teacher should know." These four themes are based on the Neuroscience Core Concepts formulated by the Society for Neuroscience. The authors emphasize that integrating neuroscientific knowledge and insights in the field of education should not be a one-way street; attempts directed at improving neuroscientific literacy are a transdisciplinary undertaking. Teacher trainers, experts from the neuroscience fields but also behavioral scientists from applied fields (notable applied neuropsychologists) should all contribute to for the educational innovations needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the comments of the editor for the journal "Human Studies." This special issue began with an idea proposed by George Psathas over lunch an intentionally open and broad call for papers to all contributors, editors and friends of "Human Studies." The present volume displays the many different ways that call was answered. As a sociologist have generally found it advisable to reject what in traditional academic circles is called interdisciplinary but in practice seems a way for one discipline to steal, and often distort in the process, ideas from other disciplines and claim them as their own. When, for instance, sociologists make use of psychological theories to explain children, rather than displaying interdisciplinarianism, they, from perspective, simply fill in gaps neglected by sociologists by stuffing in handy ideas from psychology, doing justice to neither.

This paper identifies a newly emerging function for the behavioral scientist and exemplifies its activities by describing and analyzing some recent work in the organizational change area. First, some traditional strategies of change are discussed, followed by a description and analysis of some of the newer change programs associated with the National Training Laboratories, Tavistock Institute, R. R. Blake, C. Argyris, and others. Finally, the "role strains" which inhere in this new action role are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I review and discuss the articles in this issue by Walker, by Wanner, and by Heidtman et al. There are three main themes that appear in all three papers: these flow from the shared commitment among these authors to understanding and promoting "scientific theory construction" within sociology, and to dispelling some common misconceptions about scientific sociological theory. The common themes that run through the three papers can be put in the form of questions: 1) What is a theory? 2) How should we evaluate theory? 3) How does theory grow? In addition to discussing these three main themes. I discuss four sub-themes that emerged: 1) Sociology as a Scientific Endeavor; 2) Critiques of General Theory as Being Positivistic; 3) Unitary versus Multiple Forms of Theory Building; 4) Professional/Disciplinary Barriers to Theory Construction and Theory Building in Sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decade has produced an upsurge of interest in affect and emotion. The classic theorists always recognized the important motivating force of affective response. In the late 1970's, sociologists challenged the popular view that emotions were a private, biological or psychological phenomenon by expressing the insight that most emotions originate in social events. Much debate has centered on the dispute between positivist autonomic and social constructionist positions. There are many signs now that the fast-growing research on emotions is maturing into a more highly developed substantive area. Having successfully declared the sociological relevance of the new subfield. Researchers interested in the new social analyses of emotions have formed their own community to a large extent. Quantitative work in the emotion area seems to be focused on stable aspects of affective response. Some surveys use traditional questionnaires to assess cultural beliefs. Others measure sentiments, the relatively enduring affective features of ongoing relationships.

In the first part of the paper the author briefly describes the role of social sciences and humanities in the present in Europe and in Slovakia. The description focuses on those research fields, in which social sciences and humanities contribute to the scientific knowledge the most. In the second part the author addresses the questions, which were prepared by the organizers of the round table and sent to all participants in advance. Namely: How is the relationship between the state and scientific institutions? What sources of funding are available for scientific study? Which institutions and in what ways conduct studies in the humanities? How are the research topics for projects chosen? The answers to these questions are based on participant's experiences as a member of diverse Slovak and international research committees and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, the sociology of knowledge has focused on ideology as the examination of how ideas are rooted in the social structure and how they are used to serve group interests. Recently, however, organization scholars have defined ideologies as sets of beliefs, without reference to underlying interests. The present paper argues that this usage makes ideology redundant with concepts that already have been examined rigorously by social psychologists, but that the original meaning promises new insights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the information contained in the author's paper "Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry" discussed at a symposium on Soviet Science. It is in the context of Pavlonian principles that psychology as a major discipline in Soviet Union should stand on, a move which abrogated the concepts of psychology contained in Rubenshtein's book "Bases of General Psychology". The Pavlonian session was a step towards institutionalizing the Pavlovian psychology, however, the result of the discussions was not deemed satisfactory to grant it authority and acceptance in the medical field particularly in Soviet psychiatry.

The paper presents a user-centric methodology in order to design successful mobile health (mHealth) applications. In addition to the theoretical background, such an example is presented with an application targeting chronic pain. The pain domain was decided due to its significance in many aspects: its complexity, dispersion in the population, the financial burden it causes, etc. The paper presents a step-by-step plan in order to build mobile health applications. Participatory design and interdisciplinarity are only some of the critical issues towards the desired result. In the given example (development of the PainApp), a participatory design was followed with a team of seventeen stakeholders that drove the design and development phases. Three physicians, one behavioral scientist, three IT and UX experts, and ten patients collaborated together to develop the final solution. The several features implemented in the PainApp solution are presented in details. The application is threefold: it supports the management, reporting, and treatment effectiveness monitoring. The paper is giving details on the methodological approach while presenting insights on the actual plan and the steps followed for having a patient-centric solution. Key success factors and barriers to mobile health applications that support the need for such an approach are also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper points to two little-discussed interrelated features—among sociologists—about the nature of the lifeworld ( Lebenswelt): that the experience of transcendence is an essential component of human actions, and that lived experience ( Erlebnis) is founded on the non-discursivity of the lifeworld, i.e., the pre-predicative background expectancies from which the discursive arises. I examine the intellectual route of Alfred Schutz who developed his mundane lifeworld theory from appropriating Edmund Husserl’s notions of appresentation and apperception. Harold Garfinkel later extended Schutz’s concept of lifeworld to the empirical investigations of constitutive social orders. By way of conclusion, I warn against a strain of constructionism in sociology, which tends to ignore the two said features of lived experience and inaccurately conceives social realities as essentially the actor’s discursive accomplishments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines social pattern analysis, the yet-unarticulated research strategy that guides formal sociologists in their efforts to distill generic social patterns from their specific cultural, situational, and historical contexts. Following in the implicit methodological footsteps of Georg Simmel, social pattern analysts view specific sociohistorical configurations as mere instantiations of such patterns, thereby deliberately disregarding various idiosyncrasies of the particular communities, events, and social situations they examine. Analytically focused, they thus draw their evidence from multiple social contexts, thereby making their essentially decontextualized findings more generalizable. Furthermore, in sharp contrast to historians and ethnographers, they try to highlight universality rather than singularity, thereby focusing their attention on the common formal features of any given pattern across those contexts while deliberately ignoring differences among its various specific manifestations. The outcome of such transcultural, transsituational, and transhistorical (that is, transcontextual) mode of inquiry is an empirically grounded “social geometry.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do women and men who have children during graduate school have access to the same institutional resources as non-parents? In the face of two greedy institutions, the academy and parenthood (especially motherhood), do they employ the same sorts of strategies in their quest to attain tenure-track jobs, and are those strategies successful? In this study we use a longitudinal survey of sociology Ph.D.s to investigate the availability and use of three types of resources and strategies during graduate school, and find that they all have important effects on the chances of obtaining a tenure-track position at a research or doctoral university. We find that some institutional resources are not equally distributed in graduate school, with mother's least likely to obtain them, but are significant for attainment of tenure-track positions. Resource-based strategies, including presenting papers and publishing articles while in graduate school, have a positive and significant effect on all groups' attainment of tenure-track positions. Family-based strategies such as child-spacing strategies are also significant; women who have children during graduate school have lower odds of immediately obtaining tenure-track jobs at research and doctoral universities, although access to resources and the ability to use these resources helps significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A funny thing happened to the author as he read the November 1979 Contemporary Sociology issue on sociology journals, especially its negative assessment of reviewing process and its outcomes. On the one hand, as the most recently retired editor of Social Psychology Quarterly(SPQ), the author disagrees with the negative conclusions: a surprisingly high proportion of the social scientists who have reviewed SPQ have responded to the requests conscientiously and carefully, and only an editor provided with two, or preferably three, reviews, is ordinarily in a good position to make a wise decision with regard to acceptance, rejection, or revision, though of course there are some dilemmas and undoubtedly some mistakes. On the other hand, reviews of authors own submitted papers often strike him as having missed the main contributions and to have fastened too hastily on unessential or peripheral points a reaction regardless of whether the paper was accepted or rejected. Is there something going on here more than exaggerated regard for one's own work combined with insensitivity to unfairness toward others.

This paper examines in some detail the technological innovations which have helped women overcome the physical disabilities of being female, i.e., their pregnancies and the subsequent need to nurse their babies. It was probably these aspects of being female that led Freud and others to proclaim that "biology is destiny." By 1900 in general and certainly in all particulars by 1920, technological breakthroughs lessened these disadvantages. Still psychologists, psychiatrists, and others have tended to look backwards in their assessment of women's role rather than forward. As a result the cultural lag between innovation and change was prolonged, and this has led to criticism of Yair and others by modern feminists. The result is a reassessment of the psychological evaluation of women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology faces a peculiar paradox: Every general sociological proposition is both true and false. On the one hand, one can easily find exceptions to most of the propositions which are advanced as genera! sociological principles. Yet, there are many instances in which genera! sociological principles are supported by empirical findings. As a consequence, it is not clear when some sociological principle is to be counted as false. This paper argues that a proper assessment of the state of sociological knowledge and the possibility of cumulative growth in sociology depends on resolving the true-false paradox. We argue that the paradox can be resolved if sociologists make the scope of their theories explicit. We offer a formulation of scope restrictions, demonstrate how the formulation resolves the true-false paradox, and illustrate the differences between the method proposed here and other strategies for making sociological theories conditional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the general public and behavioral scientists alike, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is the best known and most widely used tool for demonstrating implicit bias: the unintentional impact of social group information on behavior. More than forty million IATs have been completed at the Project Implicit research website. These public datasets are the most comprehensive documentation of IAT and self-reported bias scores in existence. In this essay, we describe the IAT procedure, summarize key findings using the IAT to document the pervasiveness and correlates of implicit bias, and discuss various ways to interpret IAT scores. We also highlight the most common uses of the IAT. Finally, we discuss unanswered questions and future directions for the IAT specifically, and implicit bias research more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Widely used rodent anxiety assays like the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT) are conflated with rodents' natural preference for dark over light environments or protected over open spaces. The EPM and OFT have been used for decades but are often criticized by behavioral scientists. Years ago, two revised anxiety assays were designed to improve upon the "classic" tests by excluding the possibility to avoid or escape aversion. The 3‐D radial arm maze (3DR) and the 3‐D open field test (3Doft) utilize continual motivational conflict to better model anxiety; each consist of an open space connected to ambiguous paths toward uncertain escape. Despite their utility, the revised assays have not caught on. This could be because no study yet has directly compared classic and revised assays in the same animals. To remedy this, we contrasted behavior from a battery of assays (EPM, OFT, 3DR, 3Doft and a sociability test) in mice defined genetically by isogenic strain, or environmentally by postnatal experience. One major motivation for this work is to inform future studies by offering a transparent look at individual outcomes on these assays, as there is no one‐size‐fits‐all test to assess rodent anxiety‐like behavior. Findings suggest that classic assays may sufficiently characterize differences across genetically defined groups, but the revised 3DR may be advantageous for investigating more nuanced behavioral differences such as those stemming from environmental factors. Finally, exposure to multiple assays significantly affected sociability, highlighting concerns for designing and interpreting batteries of rodent behavioral tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Émile Durkheim's writings on the sociology of the family have generally been neglected by American sociologists. Only in the last few years has there been an increased interest in his contribution to this field. This paper presents some of Durkheim's ideas on the family: his methodological approach to the study of the family and his views on the dysfunctions of divorce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

in this area. A radical re-tooling of some of his earlier definitions and concepts seems to be needed, if these are to become more appreciated and useful in future research. In short, while he undoubtedly knew his empirical evidence very well, Weber, like many other scientists, experienced some painful difficulties in attempting to classify and label it. The major modification tentatively suggested in this paper is that it is necessary to pay close attention to an extremely sharp contrast between the two variants of the traditionalist concept of domination, patrimonialism vs. feudalism. This basic contrast, crucial in his scientific investigation of cultural differentiations, runs most consistently through an unbelievable wealth of research material accumulated by him. It is an empirical typology of two sets of contradictory historical experiences concerning the origin and development of domination and legitimacy. There is another rather significant and frequently overlooked scientific contribution of Max Weber within the context of this paper. Albert Salomon's witty comment from the 1930's on the Me-long dialogue of Max Weber with the ghost of Karl Marx is now very popular among many radical, establishment, and the-rest-of-us sociologists. In spite of being fashionable to refer to it through the 1960's, no serious attempts were made to account for this many-faceted dialogue. This paper will try to settle one of the very much alive aspects of the same dialogue— hopefully to the lasting satisfaction of all. One morning numerous and valuable conceptual tools suggested by Max Weber, a typological dichotomy of patrimonialism vs. feudalism, has not been sufficiently utilized in modem research and obviously for good reasons. But the theoretical potentialities of this dichotomy seem to be imperative and still go begging particularly in an ever-increasing number of fascinating comparative analyses of durable and large political systems in time as well as in space. A consensus seems to be growing that the former is indispensable for the understanding of the latter, because the durability of patterning, found only in the comparison of things in time, is one of the most crucial prerequisites for contemporary studies of comparing things in space. Wesson (1967) and Eisenstadt (1963) in their admirable generalizing sweep of great historical empires, Blum (1964) and Jacobs (1958) in their specialized areas, could have immensely facilitated their formidable tasks if Weber's dichotomy had been available to them, thus only increasing the welldeserved impact of their contributions. Indeed, this dichotomy of Weber's, similarly to some others, does need just about a total rescue if not resurrection, and no student should be blamed for not digging for it for his own needs. Patrimonial-feudal dichotomy is buried in Webers extremely rough-draft writings on the traditionalist type of domination. In addition to being by necessity a residual type—whatever did not qualify for charismatic or legal-rational types was hastily located here perhaps for the time being—the traditionalist type, as presented by Weber, is one of the most mettled and confusing segments of Ms writings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of the kind of social organization necessary to bring about radical social change was raised by Marx in 1843-1844 in his essay on Hegel's philosophy of law. In this essay Marx specified the kind of social organization capable of bringing about the total, socialist revolution as the proletariat, a class, in society but not of it, conscious of itself and of its enemies, and organized as a party. (See also Marx and Engels, 1848). In the historical development of Marxism, Marx' answer was reinforced, but also narrowed and specified, by Lenin's classical (1902) formulation of the revolutionary cadre party. In a world in which many now talk of revolution, both in the "Third World," and even in modem industrialized countries, it may be of some use to re-examine the question of the kind of social organization involved in generating radical social change, and to reexamine the Marxist answer. My strategy in this paper is to attack the problem indirectly, by reexamining Max Weber's discussion of the role of certain kinds of Protestant groups in the rise of the capitalist world. I shall try to justify this indirect strategy at the paper's conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the name suggests, social-psychology is a bastard field. It consists of such a variety of peoples doing so many different things in different ways, that it defies definition—at least for me. In spite of the neat delineations which are made in textbooks and the scholarly historical treatments which appear in encyclopediae and symposia, I find it difficult to grasp a concept of "social-psychology" which is anything more than the operational definition: "Social psychology is what people who call themselves social-psychologists, do." That is not much help, but it is all we have got. I mention my own confusion in this matter, not with the aim of confusing others, but by way of explanation: some of the issues I will touch upon in this paper may infringe upon what readers consider to be other areas of sociology. I regret such territorial invasions. But in my own quest for understanding why people act as they do, I have increasingly found that the traditional "fields" in the discipline and the traditional courses in the catalogue do not provide appropriate categories with which I can explain to colleagues and students what it is I am discovering. Having said all of this, let us get down to business. It is a decade since Dennis Wrong published the paper in which he challenged "The oversocialized conception of man in modern society" (1961). Reacting to a determinism which pervaded the social sciences and which seemed to be seeping into popular currency, Wrong asked if man were in fact as constrained by a monolithic culture as we social scientists would have it. A few years later Harold Garfinkel referred more bluntly to the models of men constructed by the various social sciences: he called them "judgmental dopes." The cultural dope and the psychological dope are, respectively, the man in the sociologist's society and the man in the psychologist's society (1967:67-68). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first part of this paper discusses a few important questions which social scientists should consider when faced with the problem of communicating with the general public and with special publics. The second part describes some recent efforts of the University of Michigan's social research laboratory, the Detroit Area Study, to feed back findings to Detroit and the nation. S. Joseph Fauman is Director of Community Relations and Research for the Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Detroit. Harry Sharp is Director of the Detroit Area Study of the University of Michigan. Once it is agreed that the findings of social science ought to be available to the community, this question arises as how can the researcher describe his activities to the public in such a way that they will be "generally understandable and properly informative"? Shall research findings be disseminated to the public at large via press releases on the theory that if the facts and conclusions are made available? This generally results in an increased awareness of the value of social research and a greater willingness to cooperate with and support the academic researcher.

The article presents authors' reply to Michael A. Malec in response to his comments. Professor Malec takes issue with the authors over the presentation and interpretation of certain data reported in their paper "The Reward System in Science." It appears that the authors are being criticized principally for failing to report tests of significance for their measures of association. The authors ask themselves whether the association coefficients, and the partial gamma of .33 between industrial Involvement and Recognition calculated for them, affect their major conclusion, that "an industrial orientation is not an important source of internal reward." It suggests that social control in science is based on the exchange of professional recognition for contributions to science, and that scientists are accorded recognition to the extent that their contributions advance basic scientific knowledge. However, the coefficients of Table are not negligible; and the authors must account for this. The paper indicates their dissatisfaction with the index of industrial involvement, which they used as a surrogate for the social significance of a scientist's work.

While the challenges faced by the social sciences and humanities on a global level are similar - with regard to finding a method and theory for the adequate analysis of contemporary society, as well as the re-affirmation of values traditionally associated with the humanities - the case of Sweden is specific in a number of ways. The paper considers the way of organizing and place within Swedish society and academia occupied by studies within the social sciences and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Papeles del Psicólogo is the property of Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Psicologos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Papeles del Psicólogo is the property of Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Psicologos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Philosophical and empirical moral psychologists claim that emotions are both necessary and sufficient for moral judgment. The aim of this paper is to assess the evidence in favor of both claims and to show how a moderate rationalist position about moral judgment can be defended nonetheless. The experimental evidence for both the necessity- and the sufficiency-thesis concerning the connection between emotional reactions and moral judgment is presented. I argue that a rationalist about moral judgment can be happy to accept the necessity-thesis. My argument draws on the idea that emotions play the same role for moral judgment that perceptions play for ordinary judgments about the external world. I develop a rationalist interpretation of the sufficiency-thesis and show that it can successfully account for the available empirical evidence. The general idea is that the rationalist can accept the claim that emotional reactions are sufficient for moral judgment just in case a subject's emotional reaction towards an action in question causes the judgment in a way that can be reflectively endorsed under conditions of full information and rationality. This idea is spelled out in some detail and it is argued that a moral agent is entitled to her endorsement if the way she arrives at her judgment reliably leads to correct moral beliefs, and that this reliability can be established if the subject's emotional reaction picks up on the morally relevant aspects of the situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe two interdisciplinary projects in which natural scientists and engineers, as well as psychologists and other behavioral scientists, worked together to better communicate about climate change, including mitigation and impacts. One project focused on understanding and informing public perceptions of an emerging technology to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, as well as other low-carbon electricity-generation technologies. A second project focused on public understanding about carbon dioxide's residence time in the atmosphere. In both projects, we applied the mental-models approach, which aims to design effective communications by using insights from interdisciplinary teams of experts and mental models elicited from intended audience members. In addition to summarizing our findings, we discuss the process of interdisciplinary collaboration that we pursued in framing and completing both projects. We conclude by describing what we think we have learned about the conditions that supported our ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the study by psychologists Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver on the positive effects of security-enhancing interventions. The Mikulincer and Shaver target paper convincingly makes the point that a sense of felt security has a profound impact on adult social behavior in important social contexts. The research described is groundbreaking in at least three major ways.

This article presents an introduction to the rest of the issue by the editor. He suggests the themes of the issue are the culture and global warming, and how contemporary concerns are reflected in sociology and society. The articles highlight the tension between the ongoing sociological debate between emphasizing cultural or material influences. The author believes that too often that scholars resolve that dichotomy by relying on their personal preferences rather than intellectual rigor or professional objectivity.

Finite mixture models have become increasingly prevalent in criminology over the past two decades. Yet there is no consensus about the appropriate criterion for model selection with finite mixture specifications. In this paper, we use simulation evidence to examine model selection criteria. Our focus is on mixture models for event count data like those often encountered in criminology. We use two indices to measure model selection performance. First, we examine how often each criterion chooses the correct specification. Then, we investigate how closely the finite mixture models selected by these criteria approximate the true mixing distribution used to simulate the event count data. We consider three sets of simulations. In the first set, the underlying model is itself a three component Poisson-based finite mixture model. In the two other sets of simulations, the underlying distribution of the Poisson rate parameter follows a continuous distribution. The analysis shows that both AIC and BIC perform well under certain sets of circumstances likely to be encountered by criminologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the concept of convention in the social sciences. It presents the two major neo-Humean philosophical approaches to convention and challenges their intuitive appeal and research implications. The weaknesses of these approaches are examined and a new direction is suggested for the study of convention. The paper goes onto develop a framework for the analysis of conventions, using the notion of `the exemplar' introduced by Thomas Kuhn. An illustration of this alternative approach is provided using the example of the `wage relation'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of this paper summarizes his personal experience and the experience of some of his colleagues who in 1967 carried out the first stratification and mobility survey in Czechoslovakia with the totalitarian "normalisation" 1969-1989. He divides the sociology of this period into five streams a) actively supporting normalisation, b) neutrally operating in the offical institutions, c) persecuted by "Berufsverbot" or in other ways, d) actively operating in dissent, e) operating in exile. The paper refers on the base of personal memories prevailingly to the stream c) and argues that mainly thanks to its activities the achievements of the domestic Czechoslovak sociology in the two normalisation decades were of some significance for knowledge of what was going on in society. The author depicts how the persecuted sociologists found jobs or at least some inofficial opportunities to participate in research mostly with the assistance of institutions of other professional orientations and of the social science institutes in Slovakia, but without assistance from the part of the official sociological institutions in the Czech Lands. Further on he describes the fates of the last spiritual child of the Prague Spring -- the book "Czechoslovak Society" that -- in spite of having been taken by the authorities out of bookshops and libraries and severely criticized by the normalisation ideologists -- found its readers, reviewers and successors both at home and abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theoretical and practical innovations are needed if we are to advance efforts to persuade and enable people to make healthy changes in their behavior. In this paper, I propose that progress in our understanding of and ability to promote health behavior change depends upon greater interdependence in the research activities undertaken by basic and applied behavioral scientists. In particular, both theorists and interventionists need to treat a theory as a dynamic entity whose form and value rests upon it being rigorously applied, tested and refined in both the laboratory and the field. To this end, greater advantage needs to be taken of the opportunities that interventions afford for theory-testing and, moreover, the data generated by these activities need to stimulate and inform efforts to revise, refine, or reject theoretical principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intellectual relationship between Erving Goffman and Everett C. Hughes is explored in the context of an apprenticeship model derived from correspondence between the two sociologists. Goffman is identified as a "reluctant apprentice " because his work and his letters to Hughes display a tension between a striking originality and a fidelity to his "master." Three phases of their ambivalent relationship are described and an explanation for Goffman's reluctant acknowledgment of Hughes's influence is briefly explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For more than half a century the sociologist Robin M. Williams, Jr., has used his consummate analytical and communicative skills to assess and explain the character, quality and contradictions of American culture. His career as a scholar, teacher, editor and leader in our profession, and his extensive writings--especially but not exclusively in the realm of "intergroup relations"--offer a powerful counter to the contention that sociology is moribund, that its practitioners have little of importance to say about the real lives of real people or to contribute to debates over America's unfinished agenda. For students and for younger colleagues in sociology, he is a perfect example of what his one-time teacher, Robert K. Merton, must have had in mind when he first used the expression, "role-model." (See Merton 1981) At once a courtly gentleman with a soft-southern voice and an easy-going manner reminiscent of another time and place, Robin M. Williams, Jr. is also very much the modern social scientist, a hard-driving worldly philosopher with a feisty spirit, an avid curiosity, and a rare gift for demonstrating in word and deed the integration of the Comtean trilogy of theory, research and practice. He is a role model, par excellence. This paper(n1) is an attempt to flesh out this bare-bones description. It is based on interviews with a number of people,(n2) including Williams himself, a reexamination of what he has written over the past 50 years and what some reviewers and critics said about it. Taken as a whole, my biographical and bibliographical inquiry revealed that many of the variables we sociologists are wont to highlight--"nature," "nurture," "membership groups," "reference groups," "time," "place" and "serendipity"--all played their parts in making Williams the man he became and in determining the directions his work would take. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of the topics discussed in the September 1, 1999 issue of The American Sociologists concerning diversity and collaboration. Three papers in this issue address the question of diversity within sociology, with attention to both intellectual and social differences. Roger Clark frames his inquiry in dialectical terms that permit consideration of diversity as both problem and solution. Other authors employ descriptive methods to present profiles or snapshots of the current situation. Thus, Jane Lord and Stephen Sanderson examine the theoretical commitments and political orientations of one subgroup in the profession, namely, members of the theory section of the American Sociological Association. Joseph McFalls, Michael Engle and Bernard Gallagher tabulate the social characteristics of sociologists in the contemporary academy. Two other papers in this issue focus on changing patterns of work in sociology and on the experience of an extended career in the field. Nicholas Babchuk, Bruce Keith and George Peters analyze the trend toward increasing collaboration among sociologists and compare it to the situation in several other academic specializations. The voices in this issue offer valuable insights into the profession's past, present and emerging future as we become simultaneously more diverse and yet more collaborative.

Inequality is a prominent feature of Philippine society, and sociologists have devoted considerable attention to the examination of aspects of that inequality. However, the approaches utilized have in many cases failed to greatly advance our understanding of inequality. The causes of inequality have been especially ignored. This paper emphasizes the shortcomings of the dominant stratification perspective and points to alternative sociological orientations for research. The author also comments on the nature of sociological work on the 'poor,' the 'rich' and the 'middle sectors' and identifies subject areas and modes of inquiry which have been neglected and which require urgent attention. The complex multi-dimensional nature of inequality is stressed throughout the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces sociologists to intriguing findings by psychologists about the heuristics that people use in thinking about risk, the resulting biases in estimates, the preferences people exhibit for avoiding risk in some cases and seeking it in others, and the effects of variations in how choices are framed on the attractiveness of competing options. How important these psychological processes are in nonlaboratory settings depends on a series of factors (e.g. how important a decision is, how long a person has to make a decision, and whether competing actors offer alternative frames for the decision); these are outlined and illustrated here. Finally, the paper assesses the adequacy of this work as a foundation for a sociology of risk and discusses crucial issues (e.g. noncomparability of choices, risk seeking, and the role of supraindividual actors) that fall outside its purview but that would need to be incorporated into any sociological theory of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper defends metasociology against the attacks of a particular brand of metasociological critique done in the name of scientific progress. The proponents of scientific progress often argue that metasociology does not contribute anything of substantial value to the progress of sociology as a science. In contrast, we argue that this view of metasociology is not terribly well informed. We suggest that metasociology should be thought of as a dialogue with other nearby disciplines and with contemporary political and moral conversations about the social world. One job of metasociology is to expose the assumptions of sociologists so as to make them more aware of where they stand in relation to other contemporary dialogues. We also argue that for metasociology to be taken seriously as dialogue, we must give up certain pretensions. The social grounds for meta sociology as dialogue rest , on epistemic relativism and, more importantly, on judgmental relativism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates the productivity of sociologists in extension, teaching, and research. Prior to the evaluation, data were gathered from 111 individuals who work in or with the Extension Service throughout the U.S. and have at least a master's degree in sociology or rural sociology. In measuring the productivity of sociologists in teaching and research positions, American Sociological Review was used as the point of reference. The respondents of the study were then asked to indicate the number of each type of output, which they had produced from 1973 to 1975. Basing on these processes, the author of this article assumed that extension sociologists with the doctoral degrees would have greater exposure to traditional productivity scales than those with terminal master's degrees, due to the length of their academic training. The author concludes that the proposed productivity rating scale cannot be taken or used literally, however, the scales can be used as an evaluation measure for productivity output.

The rationality that guides the sociological community has generated principles to evaluate members' work. Under the sway of these principles, Georg Simmel surfaces either as a peripheral member of the community or as an outright failure. His critics have argued that his work is "fragmented," that he begins without having formulated "guiding statements," that he is "unsystematic" and "undisciplined." Yet we can discover in Simmel's writings a distinct rationality that upsets this criticism by its transcendence of it. Had these particular critics read his work more carefully they might have discovered that Simmel had anticipated their criticism and had carefully reevaluated its source of authority. In this paper 1 address the problems of discipline and systematic unity in sociological writing in order to unmask the rationality held within the sociological community and to formulate Simmel's unique contribution as a member of that community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]