Dynamic Simulation as an Approach to Understanding Hurricane Risk Response: Insights from the Stormview Lab

This article investigates the use of dynamic laboratory simulations as a tool for studying decisions to prepare for hurricane threats. A prototype web‐based simulation named Stormview is described that allows individuals to experience the approach of a hurricane in a computer‐based environment. In Stormview participants can gather storm information through various media, hear the opinions of neighbors, and indicate intentions to take protective action. We illustrate how the ability to exert experimental control over the information viewed by participants can be used to provide insights into decision making that would be difficult to gain from field studies, such as how preparedness decisions are affected by the nature of news coverage of prior storms, how a storm's movement is depicted in graphics, and the content of word‐of‐mouth communications. Data from an initial application involving a sample of Florida residents reveal a number of unexpected findings about hurricane risk response. Participants who viewed forecast graphics, which contained track lines depicting the most likely path of the storm, for example, had higher levels of preparation than those who saw graphics that showed only uncertainty cones—even among those living far from the predicted center path. Similarly, the participants who were most likely to express worry about an approaching storm and fastest to undertake preparatory action were those who, ironically, had never experienced one. Finally, external validity is evidenced by a close rank‐order correspondence between patterns of information use revealed in the lab and that found in previous cross‐sectional field studies.     

Bruno Bettelheim and His Window to the Soul

Bruno Bettelheim, a clinical psychologist, was among the most respected voices among American intelligentsia in the twentieth century. His controversial writings covered vast territory and focused on topics ranging from society, art, education, the Holocaust, and fairy tales to child-rearing. It was his clinical work with disturbed children, however, that brought him international acclaim. Yet, subsequent to his death, controversies about him and his ideas erupted and his reputation plummeted. This article is an attempt to keep some of Dr. Bettelheim’s most meaningful contributions from fading further into obscurity.     

Ein Optimierungsmodell für die wöchentliche Tourenplanung unter Einbeziehung der EU-Sozialvorschriften

The Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and the Directive 2002/15/EC concern the driving and working hours as well as breaks and rest periods of drivers in road transportation. Although the regulations have an enormous effect on vehicle routing and scheduling, only parts of them have been integrated in few solution approaches and some vehicle routing models so far. This paper starts with the presentation of the restrictions of the relevant European Community regulations. Then, a mixed integer linear programming model for the vehicle routing problem with time windows including all rules of the regulations for a planning horizon of an entire week is presented. The model is solved with CPLEX and the impact of the regulations on the resulting vehicle schedules is analyzed by means of computational experiments.     

Leo Bogart, 1921-2005

Leo Bogart, who died October 15, 2005, in New York City, calledhimself an "applied sociologist" because he spent his careerin marketing rather than academic research. But his contributionsto knowledge filled 14 books, three of them published afterhe turned 80. His appreciation for the nuances of opinion measurementand contributions to question design would have earned him distinctionon any faculty, and so his career embodied the commercial-academicblend that has characterized the American Association for PublicOpinion Research (AAPOR). Born in Lvov, Poland, he moved with his family to New York atthe age of 2. He was a high school newspaper editor in     

Tending the Vineyard: Cultivating Political Process Research

Goodwin and Jasper's criticisms of various iterations of political process theory are incorrectly applied to the entire developing paradigm. Their indictment offers a rigid and narrow representation of the theory and rejects the social science enterprise of building theory altogether. At the same time, their criticisms raise important puzzles for scholars working on social movements, particularly about defining opportunities, and studying culture. I answer their criticisms of the theory, acknowledge useful questions and challenges that they offer, and conclude by suggesting an agenda for research on social movements in the future.