Home  About us  Contact
 

Behavioural Sciences (behavioural + science)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Psychology63%
Medical Sciences27%

Selected Abstracts

Discussion on ,Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science' by R. Michael Furr

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2009
Article first published online: 14 JUL 200
Yes We Can! A Plea for Direct Behavioural Observation in Personality Research MITJA D. BACK and BORIS EGLOFF Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany mback@uni-leipzig.de Furr's target paper (this issue) is thought to enhance the standing of personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. We wholeheartedly agree with this goal. In our comment we argue for more specific and ambitious requirements for behavioural personality research. Specifically, we show why behaviour should be observed directly. Moreover, we illustratively describe potentially interesting approaches in behavioural personality research: lens model analyses, the observation of multiple behaviours in diverse experimentally created situations and the observation of behaviour in real life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Categories of Behaviour Should be Clearly Defined PETER BORKENAU Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany p.borkenau@psych.uni-halle.de The target paper is helpful by clarifying the terminology as well as the strengths and weaknesses of several approaches to collect behavioural data. Insufficiently considered, however, is the clarity of the categories being used for the coding of behaviour. Evidence is reported showing that interjudge agreement for retrospective and even concurrent codings of behaviour does not execeed interjudge agreement for personality traits if the categories being used for the coding of behaviour are not clearly defined. By contrast, if the behaviour to be registered is unambiguously defined, interjudge agreement may be almost perfect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviour Functions in Personality Psychology PHILIP J. CORR Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Philip.Corr@btopenworld.com Furr's target paper highlights the importance, yet under-representation, of behaviour in published articles in personality psychology. Whilst agreeing with most of his points, I remain unclear as to how behaviour (as specifically defined by Furr) relates to other forms of psychological data (e.g. cognitive task performance). In addition, it is not clear how the functions of behaviour are to be decided: different behaviours may serve the same function; and identical behaviours may serve different functions. To clarify these points, methodological and theoretical aspects of Furr's proposal would benefit from delineation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On the Difference Between Experience-Sampling Self-Reports and Other Self-Reports WILLIAM FLEESON Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA fleesonW@wfu.edu Furr's fair but evaluative consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of behavioural assessment methods is a great service to the field. As part of his consideration, Furr makes a subtle and sophisticated distinction between different self-report methods. It is easy to dismiss all self-reports as poor measures, because some are poor. In contrast, Furr points out that the immediacy of the self-reports of behaviour in experience-sampling make experience-sampling one of the three strongest methods for assessing behaviour. This comment supports his conclusion, by arguing that ESM greatly diminishes one the three major problems afflicting self-reports,lack of knowledge,and because direct observations also suffer from the other two major problems afflicting self-reports. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What and Where is ,Behaviour' in Personality Psychology? LAURA A. KING and JASON TRENT Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA kingla@missouri.edu Furr is to be lauded for presenting a coherent and persuasive case for the lack of behavioural data in personality psychology. While agreeing wholeheartedly that personality psychology could benefit from greater inclusion of behavioural variables, here we question two aspects of Furr's analysis, first his definition of behaviour and second, his evidence that behaviour is under-appreciated in personality psychology. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Naturalistic Observation of Daily Behaviour in Personality Psychology MATTHIAS R. MEHL Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA mehl@email.arizona.edu This comment highlights naturalistic observation as a specific method within Furr's (this issue) cluster direct behavioural observation and discusses the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) as a naturalistic observation sampling method that can be used in relatively large, nomothetic studies. Naturalistic observation with a method such as the EAR can inform researchers' understanding of personality in its relationship to daily behaviour in two important ways. It can help calibrate personality effects against act-frequencies of real-world behaviour and provide ecological, behavioural personality criteria that are independent of self-report. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Measuring Behaviour D. S. MOSKOWITZ and JENNIFER J. RUSSELL Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada dsm@psych.mcgill.ca Furr (this issue) provides an illuminating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various methods for assessing behaviour. In the selection of a method for assessing behaviour, there should be a careful analysis of the definition of the behaviour and the purpose of assessment. This commentary clarifies and expands upon some points concerning the suitability of experience sampling measures, referred to as Intensive Repeated Measurements in Naturalistic Settings (IRM-NS). IRM-NS measures are particularly useful for constructing measures of differing levels of specificity or generality, for providing individual difference measures which can be associated with multiple layers of contextual variables, and for providing measures capable of reflecting variability and distributional features of behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviours, Non-Behaviours and Self-Reports SAMPO V. PAUNONEN Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada paunonen@uwo.ca Furr's (this issue) thoughtful analysis of the contemporary body of research in personality psychology has led him to two conclusions: our science does not do enough to study real, observable behaviours; and, when it does, too often it relies on ,weak' methods based on retrospective self-reports of behaviour. In reply, I note that many researchers are interested in going beyond the study of individual behaviours to the behaviour trends embodied in personality traits; and the self-report of behaviour, using well-validated personality questionnaires, is often the best measurement option. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. An Ethological Perspective on How to Define and Study Behaviour LARS PENKE Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK lars.penke@ed.ac.uk While Furr (this issue) makes many important contributions to the study of behaviour, his definition of behaviour is somewhat questionable and also lacks a broader theoretical frame. I provide some historical and theoretical background on the study of behaviour in psychology and biology, from which I conclude that a general definition of behaviour might be out of reach. However, psychological research can gain from adding a functional perspective on behaviour in the tradition of Tinbergens's four questions, which takes long-term outcomes and fitness consequences of behaviours into account. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What is a Behaviour? MARCO PERUGINI Faculty of Psychology, University of Milan,Bicocca, Milan, Italy marco.perugini@unimib.it The target paper proposes an interesting framework to classify behaviour as well as a convincing plea to use it more often in personality research. However, besides some potential issues in the definition of what is a behaviour, the application of the proposed definition to specific cases is at times inconsistent. I argue that this is because Furr attempts to provide a theory-free definition yet he implicitly uses theoretical considerations when applying the definition to specific cases. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Is Personality Really the Study of Behaviour? MICHAEL D. ROBINSON Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu Furr (this issue) contends that behavioural studies of personality are particularly important, have been under-appreciated, and should be privileged in the future. The present commentary instead suggests that personality psychology has more value as an integrative science rather than one that narrowly pursues a behavioural agenda. Cognition, emotion, motivation, the self-concept and the structure of personality are important topics regardless of their possible links to behaviour. Indeed, the ultimate goal of personality psychology is to understanding individual difference functioning broadly considered rather than behaviour narrowly considered. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Linking Personality and Behaviour Based on Theory MANFRED SCHMITT Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany schmittm@uni-landau.de My comments on Furr's (this issue) target paper ,Personality as a Truly Behavioural Science' are meant to complement his behavioural taxonomy and sharpen some of the presumptions and conclusions of his analysis. First, I argue that the relevance of behaviour for our field depends on how we define personality. Second, I propose that every taxonomy of behaviour should be grounded in theory. The quality of behavioural data does not only depend on the validity of the measures we use. It also depends on how well behavioural data reflect theoretical assumptions on the causal factors and mechanisms that shape behaviour. Third, I suggest that the quality of personality theories, personality research and behavioural data will profit from ideas about the psychological processes and mechanisms that link personality and behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Apparent Objectivity of Behaviour is Illusory RYNE A. SHERMAN, CHRISTOPHER S. NAVE and DAVID C. FUNDER Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA funder@ucr.edu It is often presumed that objective measures of behaviour (e.g. counts of the number of smiles) are more scientific than more subjective measures of behaviour (e.g. ratings of the degree to which a person behaved in a cheerful manner). We contend that the apparent objectivity of any behavioural measure is illusory. First, the reliability of more subjective measures of behaviour is often strikingly similar to the reliabilities of so-called objective measures. Further, a growing body of literature suggests that subjective measures of behaviour provide more valid measures of psychological constructs of interest. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Personality and Behaviour: A Neglected Opportunity? LIAD UZIEL and ROY F. BAUMEISTER Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Baumeister@psy.fsu.edu Personality psychology has neglected the study of behaviour. Furr's efforts to provide a stricter definition of behaviour will not solve the problem, although they may be helpful in other ways. His articulation of various research strategies for studying behaviour will be more helpful for enabling personality psychology to contribute important insights and principles about behaviour. The neglect of behaviour may have roots in how personality psychologists define the mission of their field, but expanding that mission to encompass behaviour would be a positive step. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2009
R. Michael Furr
Abstract Personality psychology has been accused of neglecting behaviour,of devoting insufficient attention to what people actually do. The current paper addresses four important issues regarding the study of behaviour as separate from other important psychological responses,the definition of behaviour, the importance of studying behaviour, the strengths and weaknesses of core methods through which behaviour is studied and the degree to which behaviour actually has been studied in personality psychology over the past 15 years (along with information about the use of specific methods of studying behaviour). Analysis of publication trends indicates that behaviour is not studied to the degree it merits; furthermore, it indicates that, when behaviour is studied, it is usually studied at a very generalized level relying on relatively weak methods. The current paper is offered as a starting point for focused discussion of these important issues, potentially enhancing the field's standing as a truly behavioural science. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Discussion on ,Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science' by R. Michael Furr

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2009
Article first published online: 14 JUL 200
Yes We Can! A Plea for Direct Behavioural Observation in Personality Research MITJA D. BACK and BORIS EGLOFF Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany mback@uni-leipzig.de Furr's target paper (this issue) is thought to enhance the standing of personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. We wholeheartedly agree with this goal. In our comment we argue for more specific and ambitious requirements for behavioural personality research. Specifically, we show why behaviour should be observed directly. Moreover, we illustratively describe potentially interesting approaches in behavioural personality research: lens model analyses, the observation of multiple behaviours in diverse experimentally created situations and the observation of behaviour in real life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Categories of Behaviour Should be Clearly Defined PETER BORKENAU Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany p.borkenau@psych.uni-halle.de The target paper is helpful by clarifying the terminology as well as the strengths and weaknesses of several approaches to collect behavioural data. Insufficiently considered, however, is the clarity of the categories being used for the coding of behaviour. Evidence is reported showing that interjudge agreement for retrospective and even concurrent codings of behaviour does not execeed interjudge agreement for personality traits if the categories being used for the coding of behaviour are not clearly defined. By contrast, if the behaviour to be registered is unambiguously defined, interjudge agreement may be almost perfect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviour Functions in Personality Psychology PHILIP J. CORR Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Philip.Corr@btopenworld.com Furr's target paper highlights the importance, yet under-representation, of behaviour in published articles in personality psychology. Whilst agreeing with most of his points, I remain unclear as to how behaviour (as specifically defined by Furr) relates to other forms of psychological data (e.g. cognitive task performance). In addition, it is not clear how the functions of behaviour are to be decided: different behaviours may serve the same function; and identical behaviours may serve different functions. To clarify these points, methodological and theoretical aspects of Furr's proposal would benefit from delineation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On the Difference Between Experience-Sampling Self-Reports and Other Self-Reports WILLIAM FLEESON Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA fleesonW@wfu.edu Furr's fair but evaluative consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of behavioural assessment methods is a great service to the field. As part of his consideration, Furr makes a subtle and sophisticated distinction between different self-report methods. It is easy to dismiss all self-reports as poor measures, because some are poor. In contrast, Furr points out that the immediacy of the self-reports of behaviour in experience-sampling make experience-sampling one of the three strongest methods for assessing behaviour. This comment supports his conclusion, by arguing that ESM greatly diminishes one the three major problems afflicting self-reports,lack of knowledge,and because direct observations also suffer from the other two major problems afflicting self-reports. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What and Where is ,Behaviour' in Personality Psychology? LAURA A. KING and JASON TRENT Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA kingla@missouri.edu Furr is to be lauded for presenting a coherent and persuasive case for the lack of behavioural data in personality psychology. While agreeing wholeheartedly that personality psychology could benefit from greater inclusion of behavioural variables, here we question two aspects of Furr's analysis, first his definition of behaviour and second, his evidence that behaviour is under-appreciated in personality psychology. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Naturalistic Observation of Daily Behaviour in Personality Psychology MATTHIAS R. MEHL Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA mehl@email.arizona.edu This comment highlights naturalistic observation as a specific method within Furr's (this issue) cluster direct behavioural observation and discusses the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) as a naturalistic observation sampling method that can be used in relatively large, nomothetic studies. Naturalistic observation with a method such as the EAR can inform researchers' understanding of personality in its relationship to daily behaviour in two important ways. It can help calibrate personality effects against act-frequencies of real-world behaviour and provide ecological, behavioural personality criteria that are independent of self-report. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Measuring Behaviour D. S. MOSKOWITZ and JENNIFER J. RUSSELL Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada dsm@psych.mcgill.ca Furr (this issue) provides an illuminating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various methods for assessing behaviour. In the selection of a method for assessing behaviour, there should be a careful analysis of the definition of the behaviour and the purpose of assessment. This commentary clarifies and expands upon some points concerning the suitability of experience sampling measures, referred to as Intensive Repeated Measurements in Naturalistic Settings (IRM-NS). IRM-NS measures are particularly useful for constructing measures of differing levels of specificity or generality, for providing individual difference measures which can be associated with multiple layers of contextual variables, and for providing measures capable of reflecting variability and distributional features of behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviours, Non-Behaviours and Self-Reports SAMPO V. PAUNONEN Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada paunonen@uwo.ca Furr's (this issue) thoughtful analysis of the contemporary body of research in personality psychology has led him to two conclusions: our science does not do enough to study real, observable behaviours; and, when it does, too often it relies on ,weak' methods based on retrospective self-reports of behaviour. In reply, I note that many researchers are interested in going beyond the study of individual behaviours to the behaviour trends embodied in personality traits; and the self-report of behaviour, using well-validated personality questionnaires, is often the best measurement option. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. An Ethological Perspective on How to Define and Study Behaviour LARS PENKE Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK lars.penke@ed.ac.uk While Furr (this issue) makes many important contributions to the study of behaviour, his definition of behaviour is somewhat questionable and also lacks a broader theoretical frame. I provide some historical and theoretical background on the study of behaviour in psychology and biology, from which I conclude that a general definition of behaviour might be out of reach. However, psychological research can gain from adding a functional perspective on behaviour in the tradition of Tinbergens's four questions, which takes long-term outcomes and fitness consequences of behaviours into account. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What is a Behaviour? MARCO PERUGINI Faculty of Psychology, University of Milan,Bicocca, Milan, Italy marco.perugini@unimib.it The target paper proposes an interesting framework to classify behaviour as well as a convincing plea to use it more often in personality research. However, besides some potential issues in the definition of what is a behaviour, the application of the proposed definition to specific cases is at times inconsistent. I argue that this is because Furr attempts to provide a theory-free definition yet he implicitly uses theoretical considerations when applying the definition to specific cases. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Is Personality Really the Study of Behaviour? MICHAEL D. ROBINSON Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu Furr (this issue) contends that behavioural studies of personality are particularly important, have been under-appreciated, and should be privileged in the future. The present commentary instead suggests that personality psychology has more value as an integrative science rather than one that narrowly pursues a behavioural agenda. Cognition, emotion, motivation, the self-concept and the structure of personality are important topics regardless of their possible links to behaviour. Indeed, the ultimate goal of personality psychology is to understanding individual difference functioning broadly considered rather than behaviour narrowly considered. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Linking Personality and Behaviour Based on Theory MANFRED SCHMITT Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany schmittm@uni-landau.de My comments on Furr's (this issue) target paper ,Personality as a Truly Behavioural Science' are meant to complement his behavioural taxonomy and sharpen some of the presumptions and conclusions of his analysis. First, I argue that the relevance of behaviour for our field depends on how we define personality. Second, I propose that every taxonomy of behaviour should be grounded in theory. The quality of behavioural data does not only depend on the validity of the measures we use. It also depends on how well behavioural data reflect theoretical assumptions on the causal factors and mechanisms that shape behaviour. Third, I suggest that the quality of personality theories, personality research and behavioural data will profit from ideas about the psychological processes and mechanisms that link personality and behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Apparent Objectivity of Behaviour is Illusory RYNE A. SHERMAN, CHRISTOPHER S. NAVE and DAVID C. FUNDER Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA funder@ucr.edu It is often presumed that objective measures of behaviour (e.g. counts of the number of smiles) are more scientific than more subjective measures of behaviour (e.g. ratings of the degree to which a person behaved in a cheerful manner). We contend that the apparent objectivity of any behavioural measure is illusory. First, the reliability of more subjective measures of behaviour is often strikingly similar to the reliabilities of so-called objective measures. Further, a growing body of literature suggests that subjective measures of behaviour provide more valid measures of psychological constructs of interest. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Personality and Behaviour: A Neglected Opportunity? LIAD UZIEL and ROY F. BAUMEISTER Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Baumeister@psy.fsu.edu Personality psychology has neglected the study of behaviour. Furr's efforts to provide a stricter definition of behaviour will not solve the problem, although they may be helpful in other ways. His articulation of various research strategies for studying behaviour will be more helpful for enabling personality psychology to contribute important insights and principles about behaviour. The neglect of behaviour may have roots in how personality psychologists define the mission of their field, but expanding that mission to encompass behaviour would be a positive step. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Psychological processes and paranoia: implications for forensic behavioural science

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 3 2006
Richard P. Bentall Ph.D.
Paranoid delusions have recently become the focus of empirical research. In this article, we review studies of the psychological mechanisms that might be involved in paranoid thinking and discuss their implications for forensic behaviour science. Paranoia has not been consistently associated with any specific neuropsychological abnormality. However, evidence supports three broad types of mechanism that might be involved in delusional thinking in general and paranoia in particular: anomalous perceptual experiences, abnormal reasoning, and motivational factors. There is some evidence that paranoia may be associated with hearing loss, and good evidence that paranoid patients attend excessively to threatening information. Although general reasoning ability seems to be unaffected, there is strong evidence that a jumping- to-conclusions style of reasoning about data is implicated in delusions in general, but less consistent evidence specifically linking paranoia to impaired theory of mind. Finally, there appears to be a strong association between paranoia and negative self-esteem, and some evidence that attempts to protect self-esteem by attributing negative events to external causes are implicated. Some of these processes have recently been implicated in violent behaviour, and they therefore have the potential to explain the apparent association between paranoid delusions and offending. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Discussion on ,Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science' by R. Michael Furr

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2009
Article first published online: 14 JUL 200
Yes We Can! A Plea for Direct Behavioural Observation in Personality Research MITJA D. BACK and BORIS EGLOFF Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany mback@uni-leipzig.de Furr's target paper (this issue) is thought to enhance the standing of personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. We wholeheartedly agree with this goal. In our comment we argue for more specific and ambitious requirements for behavioural personality research. Specifically, we show why behaviour should be observed directly. Moreover, we illustratively describe potentially interesting approaches in behavioural personality research: lens model analyses, the observation of multiple behaviours in diverse experimentally created situations and the observation of behaviour in real life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Categories of Behaviour Should be Clearly Defined PETER BORKENAU Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany p.borkenau@psych.uni-halle.de The target paper is helpful by clarifying the terminology as well as the strengths and weaknesses of several approaches to collect behavioural data. Insufficiently considered, however, is the clarity of the categories being used for the coding of behaviour. Evidence is reported showing that interjudge agreement for retrospective and even concurrent codings of behaviour does not execeed interjudge agreement for personality traits if the categories being used for the coding of behaviour are not clearly defined. By contrast, if the behaviour to be registered is unambiguously defined, interjudge agreement may be almost perfect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviour Functions in Personality Psychology PHILIP J. CORR Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Philip.Corr@btopenworld.com Furr's target paper highlights the importance, yet under-representation, of behaviour in published articles in personality psychology. Whilst agreeing with most of his points, I remain unclear as to how behaviour (as specifically defined by Furr) relates to other forms of psychological data (e.g. cognitive task performance). In addition, it is not clear how the functions of behaviour are to be decided: different behaviours may serve the same function; and identical behaviours may serve different functions. To clarify these points, methodological and theoretical aspects of Furr's proposal would benefit from delineation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On the Difference Between Experience-Sampling Self-Reports and Other Self-Reports WILLIAM FLEESON Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA fleesonW@wfu.edu Furr's fair but evaluative consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of behavioural assessment methods is a great service to the field. As part of his consideration, Furr makes a subtle and sophisticated distinction between different self-report methods. It is easy to dismiss all self-reports as poor measures, because some are poor. In contrast, Furr points out that the immediacy of the self-reports of behaviour in experience-sampling make experience-sampling one of the three strongest methods for assessing behaviour. This comment supports his conclusion, by arguing that ESM greatly diminishes one the three major problems afflicting self-reports,lack of knowledge,and because direct observations also suffer from the other two major problems afflicting self-reports. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What and Where is ,Behaviour' in Personality Psychology? LAURA A. KING and JASON TRENT Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA kingla@missouri.edu Furr is to be lauded for presenting a coherent and persuasive case for the lack of behavioural data in personality psychology. While agreeing wholeheartedly that personality psychology could benefit from greater inclusion of behavioural variables, here we question two aspects of Furr's analysis, first his definition of behaviour and second, his evidence that behaviour is under-appreciated in personality psychology. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Naturalistic Observation of Daily Behaviour in Personality Psychology MATTHIAS R. MEHL Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA mehl@email.arizona.edu This comment highlights naturalistic observation as a specific method within Furr's (this issue) cluster direct behavioural observation and discusses the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) as a naturalistic observation sampling method that can be used in relatively large, nomothetic studies. Naturalistic observation with a method such as the EAR can inform researchers' understanding of personality in its relationship to daily behaviour in two important ways. It can help calibrate personality effects against act-frequencies of real-world behaviour and provide ecological, behavioural personality criteria that are independent of self-report. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Measuring Behaviour D. S. MOSKOWITZ and JENNIFER J. RUSSELL Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada dsm@psych.mcgill.ca Furr (this issue) provides an illuminating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various methods for assessing behaviour. In the selection of a method for assessing behaviour, there should be a careful analysis of the definition of the behaviour and the purpose of assessment. This commentary clarifies and expands upon some points concerning the suitability of experience sampling measures, referred to as Intensive Repeated Measurements in Naturalistic Settings (IRM-NS). IRM-NS measures are particularly useful for constructing measures of differing levels of specificity or generality, for providing individual difference measures which can be associated with multiple layers of contextual variables, and for providing measures capable of reflecting variability and distributional features of behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviours, Non-Behaviours and Self-Reports SAMPO V. PAUNONEN Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada paunonen@uwo.ca Furr's (this issue) thoughtful analysis of the contemporary body of research in personality psychology has led him to two conclusions: our science does not do enough to study real, observable behaviours; and, when it does, too often it relies on ,weak' methods based on retrospective self-reports of behaviour. In reply, I note that many researchers are interested in going beyond the study of individual behaviours to the behaviour trends embodied in personality traits; and the self-report of behaviour, using well-validated personality questionnaires, is often the best measurement option. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. An Ethological Perspective on How to Define and Study Behaviour LARS PENKE Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK lars.penke@ed.ac.uk While Furr (this issue) makes many important contributions to the study of behaviour, his definition of behaviour is somewhat questionable and also lacks a broader theoretical frame. I provide some historical and theoretical background on the study of behaviour in psychology and biology, from which I conclude that a general definition of behaviour might be out of reach. However, psychological research can gain from adding a functional perspective on behaviour in the tradition of Tinbergens's four questions, which takes long-term outcomes and fitness consequences of behaviours into account. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What is a Behaviour? MARCO PERUGINI Faculty of Psychology, University of Milan,Bicocca, Milan, Italy marco.perugini@unimib.it The target paper proposes an interesting framework to classify behaviour as well as a convincing plea to use it more often in personality research. However, besides some potential issues in the definition of what is a behaviour, the application of the proposed definition to specific cases is at times inconsistent. I argue that this is because Furr attempts to provide a theory-free definition yet he implicitly uses theoretical considerations when applying the definition to specific cases. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Is Personality Really the Study of Behaviour? MICHAEL D. ROBINSON Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu Furr (this issue) contends that behavioural studies of personality are particularly important, have been under-appreciated, and should be privileged in the future. The present commentary instead suggests that personality psychology has more value as an integrative science rather than one that narrowly pursues a behavioural agenda. Cognition, emotion, motivation, the self-concept and the structure of personality are important topics regardless of their possible links to behaviour. Indeed, the ultimate goal of personality psychology is to understanding individual difference functioning broadly considered rather than behaviour narrowly considered. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Linking Personality and Behaviour Based on Theory MANFRED SCHMITT Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany schmittm@uni-landau.de My comments on Furr's (this issue) target paper ,Personality as a Truly Behavioural Science' are meant to complement his behavioural taxonomy and sharpen some of the presumptions and conclusions of his analysis. First, I argue that the relevance of behaviour for our field depends on how we define personality. Second, I propose that every taxonomy of behaviour should be grounded in theory. The quality of behavioural data does not only depend on the validity of the measures we use. It also depends on how well behavioural data reflect theoretical assumptions on the causal factors and mechanisms that shape behaviour. Third, I suggest that the quality of personality theories, personality research and behavioural data will profit from ideas about the psychological processes and mechanisms that link personality and behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Apparent Objectivity of Behaviour is Illusory RYNE A. SHERMAN, CHRISTOPHER S. NAVE and DAVID C. FUNDER Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA funder@ucr.edu It is often presumed that objective measures of behaviour (e.g. counts of the number of smiles) are more scientific than more subjective measures of behaviour (e.g. ratings of the degree to which a person behaved in a cheerful manner). We contend that the apparent objectivity of any behavioural measure is illusory. First, the reliability of more subjective measures of behaviour is often strikingly similar to the reliabilities of so-called objective measures. Further, a growing body of literature suggests that subjective measures of behaviour provide more valid measures of psychological constructs of interest. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Personality and Behaviour: A Neglected Opportunity? LIAD UZIEL and ROY F. BAUMEISTER Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Baumeister@psy.fsu.edu Personality psychology has neglected the study of behaviour. Furr's efforts to provide a stricter definition of behaviour will not solve the problem, although they may be helpful in other ways. His articulation of various research strategies for studying behaviour will be more helpful for enabling personality psychology to contribute important insights and principles about behaviour. The neglect of behaviour may have roots in how personality psychologists define the mission of their field, but expanding that mission to encompass behaviour would be a positive step. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Evaluation by dental students of a communication skills course using professional role-players in a UK school of dentistry

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION, Issue 1 2005
P. Croft
This paper reports student (n = 180) feedback on the role-play teaching methodology used in behavioural sciences teaching at The School of Dentistry in Birmingham (UK). The feedback received on this well-established (since 1995) educational programme was collected via questionnaire (100% response rate), requiring Likert scale and free text responses. Generally students reported that they had enjoyed and valued the session. Over two-thirds (69.7%) of students rated the role-players as ,very real' and over three-quarters (78.9%) rated their feedback as ,very fair'. The data collected from this study will inform future curriculum development. Student feedback was very positive and demonstrated that the cohort (86% of all students studying in years 1, 2 and 3) found the use of professional role-players involved in behavioural sciences teaching to be both acceptable and valuable. [source]

Development and evaluation of a cd-rom to support student learning in dentist,patient communication

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION, Issue 2 2003
J. T. Newton
The interaction between dentist and patient is central to the provision of effective healthcare. A multidisciplinary team containing expertise in the social and behavioural sciences, medicine, dentistry, education and information technology was formed to design a CD-ROM to support more traditional teaching and learning in this area. The final version of the program consists of a ,virtual' patient from whom students are asked to take a medical history. The ,patient' interacts with the student and responds to the style of their questioning by changes in anxiety, or degree of annoyance. To date, the CD-ROM has been evaluated in two stages. The first stage was a predictive formative evaluation by the research/development team, and the second stage was a formative evaluation by 144 dental students of the first full prototype. A third stage, to be conducted next year, will involve measuring the longer term impact of the CD-ROM through the assessment of students' abilities to communicate with patients. The evaluation had two components: students made rates of how useful and easy to use they found the program, and students' attitudes towards interacting with patients were evaluated adopting constructs from the theory of Planned Behaviour. Students were positive about the use of the CD-ROM, though they requested some changes in the functionality of the program. Compared to a sample of students who had not used the CD-ROM, the students who used the CD-ROM felt more positive about communicating with their patients, at the end of the course, and expressed stronger intentions to communicate well with patients. We conclude that the CD-ROM we have developed in a useful adjunct to learning in dentist,patient communication. [source]

Social Constructionism as Cognitive Science

JOURNAL FOR THE THEORY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, Issue 4 2004
THOMAS E. DICKINS
Social constructionism is a broad position that emphasizes the importance of human social processes in psychology. These processes are generally associated with language and the ability to construct stories that conform to the emergent rules of "language games". This view allows one to espouse a variety of critical postures with regard to realist commitments within the social and behavioural sciences, ranging from outright relativism (language constructs all of our concepts) to a more moderate respect for the "barrier" that linguistic descriptions can place between us and reality. This paper first outlines some possible social construction-ist viewpoints and then goes on to show how each of them conforms to the basic principles of information theory. After establishing this relation the paper then argues that this leads to a great deal of commonality between social construction-ist positions and the baseline aims of cognitive science. Finally, the paper argues that, if information theory is held in common, this both suggests future research collaborations and helps to "mop up" some of the arguments surrounding realist commitments. [source]

Measuring physiotherapists' guideline adherence by means of clinical vignettes: a validation study

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 5 2006
Geert M.J. Rutten MPH
Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives, To assess the criterion validity of paper-and-pencil vignettes to assess guideline adherence by physiotherapists in the Netherlands. The evidence-based physiotherapy practice guideline for low back pain was used as an example. Methods, Four vignettes were constructed and pre-tested. Three vignettes were found to represent an adequate case-mix. They described one patient with specific low back pain, one with non-specific low back pain and a normal recovery process and one with non-specific low back pain and a delay in the recovery process. Invited to participate were 113 primary care physiotherapists who had joined an randomized controlled trial study 8 months before, in which guideline adherence had been measured by means of semi-structured treatment recording forms. The criterion validity was determined with Spearman's rs, using Cohen's classification for the behavioural sciences to categorize its effect size. Results, Of the 72 physiotherapists who agreed to participate, 39 completed the questions on the vignettes. In the end, both adherence measures were available for 34 participants, providing 102 vignettes and 268 recording forms. Mean guideline adherence scores were 57% (SD = 17) when measured by vignettes and 74% (SD = 15) when measured by recording forms. Spearman's rs was 0.31 (P = 0.036), which, according to Cohen's classification, is a medium effect size. Conclusion, Vignettes are of acceptable validity, and are an inexpensive and manageable instrument to measure guideline adherence among large groups of physiotherapists. Further validation studies could benefit from the use of standardized patients as a gold standard, a more diverse case mix to better reflect real physiotherapy practice, and the inclusion of longitudinal vignettes that cover the patients' course of treatment. [source]

Front and Back Covers, Volume 23, Number 3.

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY, Issue 3 2007
June 200
Front & back cover caption, volume 23 issue 3 PARTISAN ,ANTHROPOLOGY' The cover of this issue reproduces a Republican Party campaign poster from 1900, which claims that between 1896 and 1900 the American flag was being planted on foreign soil not ,to acquire more territory' but ,for humanity's sake'. The poster contrasts an image of economic decline at home and poverty in the Spanish colony of Cuba, alleged to be the Democratic legacy in 1896, with one of prosperity in the US and progress in its new dominion after four years of Republican rule. The next US presidential elections will take place in November 2008, and campaigning for nomination is already under way. Partisan proclamations that territories are occupied for ,humanity's sake' suggest good intentions, but anthropology researches and seeks to connect with humanity as a whole, not to serve one party or one nation over another. Bush's ,war on terror' has divided the world, generating a renewed interest in partisan use of the social and behavioural sciences, including anthropology, in the hope that these might help succeed where force has failed. The 2007 annual meeting of the Association of Social Anthropologists resolved that a research proposal by our principal research funding agency endangered lives and was in violation of our professional ethics. History will not judge us kindly if funding agencies proceed unilaterally, or if our professional associations fail to give clear guidance on the circumstances under which it is appropriate for professional anthropologists to be involved in such activities, if at all. Everyone supports non-partisan use of academic research for ,humanity's sake'. However, since anthropologists cannot research without first gaining and then retaining the trust of the peoples they engage with in the course of fieldwork throughout the world, in open and willing long-lasting relationships, partisan deployment of our research in war constitutes a potentially life-threatening development for the peoples we befriend, for ourselves, our students, our profession and for our family and colleagues. As part of an ongoing engagement with how our research, and that of other social and behavioural sciences, is being appropriated in war, this issue of ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY features discussions on their use in two areas of warfare, with contributions on counterinsurgency, by Roberto González, David Kilcullen and Montgomery McFate, and unwitting input into interrogation techniques, by David Price. [source]