An Evaluation of Stimulus Preference Assessment Methodology in Organizational Behavior Management

The organizational behavior management literature has yielded few stimulus preference assessment methodologies for use with employees. The current investigation compared three preference assessments (ranking, survey, and multiple stimulus without replacement procedures) found in the organizational behavior management literature for their ability to predict reinforcers for direct care staff members’ behavior. In the first experiment all assessments were effective for predicting reinforcers, but the results were limited by a lack of control items in the assessment. In the second experiment the survey and ranking assessments both proved to be effective for identifying reinforcers and neutral or ineffective stimuli. Implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Systematic analysis of multiple voting rules

For a class of voting rules, which includes Approval and Cumulative Voting, it is shown how to find and analyze all possible outcomes that arise with a specified profile, and, conversely, how to start with a potential region and determine whether there exist supporting profiles. The geometry of these regions is determined by the “Reversal symmetry” portion of a profile; i.e., components of the A\succ B\succ C, C\succ B\succ A{A\succ B\succ C, C\succ B\succ A} type.     

The alchemy of the photograph

This essay explores how an old snapshot of a group of friends perpetuates an idealised version of their childhood. When presented with the photograph during interview sessions, individuals expressed a longing for a racially integrated past. Posed together, seemingly relaxed and genuinely familiar with each other, the group embodied the hopes and dreams of the Civil Rights Movement. The story behind the veneer, however, is much more complicated than a cursory look at the photograph suggests. In reality, the lives of those pictured were only intermittingly joined.     

A simplified proof of a theorem on the difference of the moore–penrose inverses of two positive semi–difinte matrices

Simplified proofs are given of a standard result that establishes positive semi–definiteness of the difference of the inverses of two non–singular matrices, and of the extension of this result by Milliken and Akdeniz (1977) to the difference of the Moore–Penrose inverse of two singular matrices.     

Estimating consumer acceptance limits

A methodology is developed for estimating consumer acceptance limits on a sensory attribute of a manufactured product. In concept these limits are analogous to engineering tolerances. The method is based on a generalization of Stevens' Power Law. This generalized law is expressed as a nonlinear statistical model. Instead of restricting the analysis to this particular case, a strategy is discussed for evaluating nonlinear models in general since scientific models are frequently of nonlinear form. The strategy focuses on understanding the geometrical contrasts between linear and nonlinear model estimation and assessing the bias in estimation and the departures from a Gaussian sampling distribution. Computer simulation is employed to examine the behavior of nonlinear least squares estimation. In addition to the usual Gaussian assumption, a bootstrap sample reuse procedure and a general triangular distribution are introduced for evaluating the effects of a non-Gaussian or asymmetrical error structure. Recommendations are given for further model analysis based on the simulation results. In the case of a model for which estimation bias is not a serious issue, estimating functions of the model are considered. Application of these functions to the generalization of Stevens’ Power Law leads to a means for defining and estimating consumer acceptance limits, The statistical form of the law and the model evaluation strategy are applied to consumer research data. Estimation of consumer acceptance limits is illustrated and discussed.     

Simmel at a Distance: On the History and Systematics of the Sociology of the Stranger

Abstract

Concepts made famous in “classic” works are often cited in ways that deviate from their original meaning. This often leads to cumulative confusion rather than the advancement of insight. Scrutiny of such confusions may provide fruitful points of departure for systematic codification.

In the literature which refers to Simmel's excursus on “The Stranger,” four areas of confusion can be identified

1. Simmel's conception of the stranger has periodically been equated with the concept of the “marginal man,” a very different social type;

2. Simmel's conception of the stranger has often been equated with the newly arrived outsider, another distinct type;

3. the distinction (only latent in Simmel) between strangers as individuals and stranger communities has not been articulated in later studies; and

4. the significance of the variety of ways in which Simmel used the metaphor of simultaneous closenss and remoteness has been obscured.

Clarification of the issues related to these four areas of confusion lays the basis fora typology of stranger statuses (Guest, Sojourner, Newcomer, Intruder, Inner Enemy, Marginal Man) and a related paradigm presented to assist in organizing the sociology of the stranger in a more systematic fashion.     

On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value‐free social science

A value judgment says what is good or bad, and value‐free social science simply means social science free of value judgments. Yet many sociologists regard value‐free social science as undesirable or impossible and readily make value judgments in the name of sociology. Often they display confusion about such matters as the meaning of value‐free social science, value judgments internal and external to social science, value judgments as a subject of social science, the relevance of objectivity for value‐free social science, and the difference between the human significance of social science and value‐free social science. But why so many sociologists are so value‐involved – and generally so unscientific – is sociologically understandable: The closest and most distant subjects attract the least scientific ideas. And during the past century sociologists have become increasingly close to their human subject. The debate about value‐free social science is also part of an epistemological counterrevolution of humanists (including many sociologists) against the more scientific social scientists who invaded and threatened to expropriate the human subject during the past century.