Search results

ICI plc is convinced that there is a very real role for the end‐user in the acquisition of information by online search and Mond Division has been training end‐users since 1983. This article describes the setting‐up of the project, the methodology and results, and outlines developments being pursued in conjunction with other Divisions of ICI towards an ideal system. Implications of the project for the role of the information scientists themselves are considered.

The purpose of this paper is to test the attenuated-anger and heightened-anger hypotheses of psychopathy by assessing the physiological, behavioral, and subjective measures of anger in individuals with and without psychopathic traits.

In all, 62 male college students were assigned to one of three groups based on evidence of elevated affective-interpersonal (Factor 1) and antisocial lifestyle (Factor 2) traits associated with psychopathy (the IF1+F2 group), evidence of only Factor 2 traits (the F2 only group), or based on the absence of psychopathic traits (the control group), using Gough’s (1957) Socialization scale and a modified, interview only form of Hare’s (1991) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. To induce anger, participants received unjust criticism about their performance on a computer-based affective lexical decision task and were denied a performance bonus they had reason to expect.

Following provocation, the three groups displayed similar increases in blood pressure, pulse, and self-reported anger. The control and IF1+F2 groups also displayed similar retaliation toward the confederate. However, the IF1+F2 group displayed smaller increases on two of three measures of facial muscle activity associated with anger.

This study is one of the first to assess anger responsiveness in individuals with psychopathic traits using a powerful anger induction and using physiological, behavioral, and subjective indices of anger. It is also the first to assess both the attenuated-anger and the heightened-anger hypotheses of psychopathy. The findings appear largely inconsistent with both perspectives.

Cultural portraits usually begin with a description of the context, but as this material is covered elsewhere in this volume, this introduction will be mercifully brief. At any time during the last four decades, there have been dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of Stanford University faculty and doctoral students interested in studying organizations. They have been scattered across the campus, often in small groups within larger schools and departments. They have been based in the Sociology Department and the Organizational Behavior and Strategy areas at the Graduate School of Business. There were always a handful at the Education and Engineering schools, as well as a scattering of individuals doing related work in Psychology, Political Science, and Anthropology. In spite of their numbers, before the Stanford Center for Organizational Research (SCOR) was founded in 1972, many of these faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and doctoral students felt rather isolated. They had little contact with colleagues across campus who shared their interest in organizations and little collective clout when resources were being distributed.

THE following is a brief account of how Monospar machines are being made, rather than a description of a completely worked‐out production system, and also of the considerations which were borne in mind while the machine was being designed. These considerations can be grouped under three headings: Design, Production and Maintenance, and will be dealt with after a brief description of the whole machine, which may be of assistance in visualising how the components to be described are combined.

Discusses the model of industrial development, the S‐curve model and the model of technological life cycles. Shows that these three models are based on similar assumptions and are, therefore, closely related. The analysis shows, furthermore, that the models have significant implications for technology management. Finally, analyses the extent to which conventional methods of evaluating technological projects take these implications into account. Subjective evaluation techniques, risk/return analyses as well as portfolio methods are subject to critical appraisal. All in all, it becomes clear that these evaluative tools are, at best, of limited use.