Critique of Cooper's meta-analytic assessment of the findings on sex differences in conformity behavior.

Assesses H. M. Cooper's (see record 1980-20979-001) attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a meta-analytic (statistical) to a literary (nonstatistical) approach to evaluating the import of a collection of tests of the same null hypothesis. Cooper performed a meta-analysis of the findings on sex differences in conformity behavior reported in 2 literary reviews—E. E. Maccoby and C. N. Jacklin (1975) and A. H. Eagly (see record 1979-23638-001). The present author criticizes Cooper's analysis for (a) having a statistical error that is instrumental in drawing 1 of 2 conclusions that conflict with those of the literary analysts, (b) its choice of effect-size indices, and (c) most importantly, its treatment of effect-size data. It is contended that contrary to his own injunction, Cooper almost totally failed to take effect-size data into account in his analysis. Effect-size analyses performed by the present author dispute the 2 conclusions of Cooper's that are at odds with those of the literary analysts. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychometric truths in the absence of psychological meaning: A reply to Zuckerman and Knee.

M. Zuckerman and C. R. Knee (see record 199601769-012) contend that the relationship we reported between self-enhancement and psychological maladjustment (C. R. Colvin, J. Block, D. C. Funder; see record 1995-33022-001) is "not warranted" because a difference score was used to operationalize self-enhancement. In this article we discuss the issues raised by Zuckerman and Knee, the warnings historically issued about the use of difference scores, and the problems associated with alternative statistical procedures. We conclude that difference scores can provide statistically valid and psychologically meaningful results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A methodological note on the Cline and Richards' studies on accuracy of interpersonal perception.

Comments on a series of studies reported by Cline and Richards (1960, 1961) (see record 1960-07621-001; see record 1962-06527-001) that offer evidence for the existence of a global ability to judge others. The authors (1961) note that their findings are at variance with previous research which had failed to find any generality or global ability to judge. The comment asserts that the authors, though recognizing the introduction of bias, employ a faulty logic in its defense. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exemplar representation without generalization? Comment on Smith and Minda's (2000) "Thirty categorization results in search of a model."

J. D. Smith and J. P. Minda (see record 1999-15928-001) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 data sets reported in the classification literature that involved use of the "5–4" category structure introduced by D. L. Medin and M. M. Schaffer (1978). The meta-analysis was aimed at investigating exemplar and elaborated prototype models of categorization. In this commentary, the author argues that the meta-analysis is misleading because it includes many data sets from experimental designs that are inappropriate for distinguishing the models. Often, the designs involved manipulations in which the actual 5–4 structure was not, in reality, tested, voiding the predictions of the models. The commentary also clarifies various aspects of the workings of the exemplar-based context model. Finally, concerns are raised that the all-or-none exemplar processes that form part of Smith and Minda's (see record 1999-15928-001) elaborated prototype models are implausible and lacking in generality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Professor Bechtoldt's critique.

Presents a reply regarding Bechtoldt's critique (see record 1960-06754-001) of the article by Haggard et al. (see record 1960-00131-001). True, many of the comments in his section on "Factor Analytic Techniques" are interesting and informative--and generally corrective--but they are also essentially irrelevant to our paper and its purpose. There is clear difference of opinion as to whether, when, or what factor analytic techniques should be used in particular cases. Some of Bechtoldt's remarks in his sections entitled "Direct Correlation Methods'and "Concluding Remarks" call for more specific comment, primarily because I think he misses the point from time to time. Bechtoldt has us on the ropes when he cites the statement "with the procedures discussed thus far, it is not possible to form groups around such a priori profiles." We should have said "not practicable" (instead of using the too strong term "not possible") to indicate that, for the majority of research workers, these procedures are not possible from a practical point of view. In his concluding paragraph, he appears to chide us (following his phrase "other technically questionable discussions") for possibly suggesting "the testing of statistical hypotheses using sets of related observations." We took pains to observe that, although multivariate data can be analyzed properly only by the appropriate multivariate statistical techniques, approximate produres for pattern analytic studies are available which utilize most of the information in the data without violating certain important statistical assumptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency?": Response.

Responds to the L. Gannon et al (see record 1992-23274-001) comments on the F. L. Denmark et al (see record 1988-34553-001) paper, "Guidelines for Avoiding Sexism in Psychological Research." The authors note that the intent of Denmark et al was to point out common examples of sex bias in psychological research and offer scientifically sound recommendations to prevent or reduce sex bias. However, the authors reaffirm the scientific need to analyze and report sex differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Abilities, motives, and personal styles: Reply.

Responds to the comments of P. L. Ackerman (see record 2006-12925-012), D. Y. Dai (see record 2006-12925-013), and M. C. Gridley (see record 2006-12925-014) on E. S. Spelke's original article "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review" (see record 2005-15840-001). Here, the current authors first consider Ackerman's criticism of IQ measures of cognitive sex differences, as well as his suggestion that Advanced Placement tests be used as a second measure. Next, the authors discuss Dai's suggestion that cognition and motivation, abilities and strategies, are inseparably bound in any meaningful measure of aptitude for mathematics and science. Finally, the authors address Gridley's suggestion that differences in men's and women's thinking styles and preferences explain gender disparities in math and science fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sample description, reporting, an analysis of sex in psychological research: A look at APA and APA division journals in 1990.

Extends a study by L. Gannon et al (see record 1992-23274-001) by examining the sex of Ss in American Psychological Association (APA) journals publishing original human studies research and by sampling all APA division journals publishing such research. Two issues of each APA and APA division journal published in 1990 were examined, yielding a sample of 504 articles from 26 journals. 79 cases (9.86%) clearly indicated using Ss of only 1 sex, 440 cases (54.93%) used both male and female Ss and reported sex fully, and 44 cases (5.49%) indicated using Ss of each sex without reporting exact numbers. The evidence suggests that there remains a significant tendency to consider male Ss as "normative," and results obtained from them generally applicable, whereas female Ss are somehow "different," and results obtained from them are specific to female Ss. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When selective adaptation and contrast effects are distinct: A reply to Diehl, Kluender, and Parker.

Two alternative conceptualizations of selective adaptation with speech have recently received attention: the adaptation level theory (AL) outlined by R. L. Diehl (see record 1981-05067-001) and a 2-stage model outlined by the 1st author and P. Jusczyk (see record 1982-00351-001). Diehl et al (see record 1986-05428-001) reported evidence of streaming in selective adaptation and claimed that their results provide a counterdemonstration to recent studies that have argued against the AL approach. It is shown how the Diehl et al results can be accounted for by both the 2-stage model and AL theory. Results are presented from a study with 74 undergraduates that compared adaptation and paired-comparison procedures. These results are precisely as predicted by the 2-stage model, but they cannot be accounted for by AL theory. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Should we stop studying sex differences altogether?

Discusses whether the study of sex differences in psychological literature is politically valuable, and its long-range contribution to scientific progress. It is concluded that the study of sex differences should continue, but that they should not be reported in every article as claimed by A. Eagly (see record 1988-00051-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria.

Used the criteria reported by D. E. Terpstra (see record 1982-04524-001) in his study of methodological vigor in organization development evaluation research to select 90 studies, 1965–1980, for inclusion in a replication. Using the published coding scheme, the authors independently scored the 1st half-period, 1965–1972. Results show no evidence of positive-findings bias in organization development evaluation research, failing to support Terpstra's conclusion. There were differences in sample size and difficulties in coding variables. It is suggested that without a clear distinction between mixed and uniform, the coding of the research became a matter of subjective judgment. Two key decision areas of meta-analysis that may be affected by subjective biases are the coding of results and the decision rules used to code study characteristics. After a discussion of potential meta-analysis problems, 14 criteria for evaluating meta-analysis research are given. Standards include using a theoretical model, identifying the domain, including all publicly available studies, publishing a list of studies used, providing documentation of the theoretically based coding scheme, using multiple raters, and limiting generalization to the domain specified. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is there sex bias in salaries of psychologists?

Argues that, despite L. C. Solomon's (see record 1979-26991-001) claim of systematic sex discrimination in the salaries of PhD psychologists, due to a statistical regression paradox, the analyses reported in the article do not demonstrate the presence of bias. Solomon's data are likened to hypothetical paradoxical data presented by the author; until the data for women are properly analyzed, it is premature to conclude that there is evidence of sex bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Addressing criticism of sex bias research on borderline personality disorder.

Replies to H. N. Garb's (see record 1996-08172-001) criticism that D. Becker and S. Lamb (see record 1994-29756-001) overlooked previous studies of sex bias in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and overinterpreted their findings. The authors address specific methodological criticisms and discuss their study's strengths (e.g., the inclusion of psychologists and social workers as well as psychiatrists) in the context of studies by M. R. Ford and T. A. Widiger (see record 1989-26071-001), K. A. Henry and C. I. Cohen (see record 1984-06917-001), and D. A. Adler et al (see record 1991-15353-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparison of three meta-analysis methods revisited: An analysis of Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995).

B. T. Johnson, B. Mullen, and E. Salas (see record 1995-19895-001) concluded the the J. W. Hunter and F. L. Schmidt (1990) meta-analysis methods yield anomalous results in a variety of analyses. An examination of their procedures reveals that most of their conclusions to this effect stem from their use of a formula for the standard error of the mean correlation that is not used in the Hunter and Schmidt (1990) methods. Results produced using the appropriate formula are not anomalous and are similar to those from other meta-analysis procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychotherapy or massage parlor technology? Comments on the Zeiss, Rosen, and Zeiss treatment procedure.

Argues that there are numerous ethical, moral, philosophical, and social psychological issues involved in modern sex therapy. Psychologists have accorded sex therapy a warm reception into the field, but present ethical guidelines are insufficient to protect clients from psychological damage in the form of massive intrusions on privacy and reoriented moral and religious values. Further, the more explicit procedures seem to carry a message to society that "anything goes." The procedure employed by A. M. Zeiss et al (see record 1978-01520-001) is used as a reference point for discussing these issues. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Methodological issues in meta-analyzing standard deviations: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008).

In this comment on C. F. Bond and B. M. DePaulo (see record 2008-08177-001), the authors raise methodological concerns about the approach used to analyze the data. The authors suggest further refinement of the procedures used, and they compare the approach taken by Bond and DePaulo with standard methods for meta-analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of strength and immediacy in group contexts: Reply to Jackson.

Responds to J. M. Jackson's (see record 1986-19799-001) comments on the present author's (see record 1985-28034-001) meta-analysis of the effects of strength and immediacy in group contexts. It is argued that the conceptual analysis of social impact theory was unflattering but accurate, that the categorization scheme used in the meta-analysis was straightforward and defensible, and that the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis provided the opportunity for an unbiased test of social impact theory's implications. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A reconsideration of two-person inequity judgments: A reply to Anderson.

Replies to N. H. Anderson's (see record 1984-22881-001) argument that "two-operation logic," which was applied to N. H. Anderson and A. J. Farkas's (1975) experiment, supported the ratio model, established the linearity of the response scale, and refuted the subtractive model proposed by the present author (see record 1982-29568-001). A reanalysis shows that the data of Anderson and Farkas are more consistent with subtractive models than ratio models and illustrates problems with the two-operation logic that led Anderson to his conclusions. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individual differences in judging deception: Reply to O'Sullivan (2008) and Pigott and Wu (2008).

C. F. Bond and B. M. DePaulo (see record 2008-08177-001) reported a quantitative synthesis of individual differences in judging deception. Here, the authors respond to a pair of commentaries on this synthesis: a statistical critique by T. D. Pigott and M. J. Wu (see record 2008-08177-003)and a narrative reaction by M. O'Sullivan (see record 2008-08177-002). In response to suggestions made by Pigott and Wu, the authors conduct several alternative analyses of individual differences in judging deception. Without exception, these yield results similar to those that the authors reported earlier. In response to O'Sullivan's questions, the authors point to their meta-analyses of relevant moderator variables. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overly broad categories obscure important differences between therapies.

Comments on M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome, noting that distortions emerge when the types of therapy under study are organized into 2 "superclasses" of behavioral and nonbehavioral therapies. These groupings ignore important differences among the nonbehavioral therapies, for example, the superior effects of rational-emotive therapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)