Advancing Scientific Discourse in the Controversy Surrounding the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A Rejoinder to Meyer (2000)

A recent commentary by Meyer (2000) in the Journal of Personality Assessment alleged that Rorschach critic Wood and his colleagues had intentionally published information that they knew to be in error. To substantiate this contention, Meyer’s commentary published information that was part of the peer review process at another journal. In this rejoinder, we present factual information that shows we have consistently acted in good faith. This rejoinder suggests that the scientific debate regarding the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach is unlikely to be advanced by speculating about the intentions of Rorschach critics, or by publishing information from the peer review process that is usually kept confidential

Judgments of reliability and credibility of interviews in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of decisionmaker, interviewing techniques, and case characteristics

This project seeks to assess the extent to which those who participate in the justice system identify and assess the influence of interview factors that are likely to produce suggestibility in children who allege that they have been sexually abused. The project seeks to answer two specific questions: (1) To what extent do variations in interviewer characteristics, interview characteristics, interviewing techniques, and child and suspect characteristics in forensic interviews of children influence professionals\u27 (judges, interviewers, expert witnesses) and jurors judgments of those interviews? (2) Can student proxies serve as adequate substitutes for those professionals in research assessing factors that influence judgments about forensic interviews of children? This study investigated participants\u27 sensitivity to 19 manipulations in four domains: (1) interviewer characteristics (e.g., profession), (2) interview characteristics (e.g., interview location), (3) interviewing techniques (e.g., question types), and (4) child and suspect characteristics (e.g. SES, ethnicity). Overall, this research provided support for the use of undergraduates as mock jurors in jury research. However, researchers investigating decisions of legal professionals need to carefully consider the many differences this research found between the professionals and their student proxies. Professionals who interview children alleged to have been sexually abused demonstrated fair sensitivity to the manipulations, as did judges, when compared to the other participants. It was hoped that we would be able to recommend that therapists who may testify as experts should be permitted to educate jurors regarding what constitutes “good” and “bad” interviewing as well as the negative effects of poor interviewing. But in our analysis, they often made the same assessments as the jurors, thus it is questionable whether they would be able to provide the jurors with any knowledge that is beyond their ken

Trust Development in Swift Starting Action Teams: A Multilevel Framework

Swift starting action teams (STATs) are increasingly prevalent in organizations, and the development of trust is often a critical issue for their effectiveness. However, current theory and research do not provide a clear picture regarding how trust toward the team (i.e., the team as the target) is developed in these settings. The primary contribution of this article is to present a theoretical framework describing how individual-level trust toward one’s team is developed in STAT contexts. This article integrates several existing trust theories into one comprehensive context-specific multilevel theory of how trust develops in STATs from cognitive, affective, behavioral, and contextual perspectives. This framework furthers our understanding of the unique antecedents of initial trust in STATs, how trust attitudes are adjusted over the short amount of time the team interacts, and how the team context influences this developmental process

Trust Development in Swift Starting Action Teams: A Multilevel Framework

Swift starting action teams (STATs) are increasingly prevalent in organizations, and the development of trust is often a critical issue for their effectiveness. However, current theory and research do not provide a clear picture regarding how trust toward the team (i.e., the team as the target) is developed in these settings. The primary contribution of this article is to present a theoretical framework describing how individual-level trust toward one’s team is developed in STAT contexts. This article integrates several existing trust theories into one comprehensive context-specific multilevel theory of how trust develops in STATs from cognitive, affective, behavioral, and contextual perspectives. This framework furthers our understanding of the unique antecedents of initial trust in STATs, how trust attitudes are adjusted over the short amount of time the team interacts, and how the team context influences this developmental process