“GAME” VERSUS “TEST” INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE WISC1

“Game” or “test” instructions on either verbal or nonverbal WISC scales were given to 160 third- and sixth-grade children. Ss in one condition were told they were going to take several tests, while Ss in the other condition were told they were going to play several games. Significant differences in performance due to task definition were found only on verbal tasks at the sixth-grade level with test instructions yielding superior performance. Results at the third-grade level failed to replicate previous results which suggested game instructions produce superior performance on nonverbal tasks.     

CHILD REARING IN THE “RISK” SOCIETY: ON THE DISCOURSE OF RIGHTS AND THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD”

Due to a number of radical changes in society, the role of parents in the upbringing of their children has been redefined. In this essay, Paul Smeyers argues that “risk” thinking, and the technologization that goes with it in the context of child rearing, naturally leads to the rights discourse, but that thinking about the relation between parents and children in terms of rights confronts one with a number of insurmountable problems. The concept of the “best interests of a child” that is often invoked is, to say the least, not at all clear. Smeyers contends that while the discourse of rights is clearly important and relevant insofar as the relation between parents and the state are discussed, it impoverishes our understanding of relations of family members when used as an all‐inclusive framework in that context. Therefore, he concludes that we must surpass the totalizing tendency of the transformation of the social realm into a system, of defining the relation between parents and children in technical terms, and of holding parents liable for their children's upbringing.     

Keep the “H”

This commentary advocates “keeping the H” in “human performance technology” to help make it clear to nonpractitioners what human performance consultants do. There are different types of performance (e.g., financial performance) and different means of achieving performance (e.g., engineering) that are outside the average human performance technologist's repertoire. Though the human performance technologist should target business results and intervene at more than just the individual level, ultimately, their emphasis is improving human work.     

The “pinpointing effect” vs. the “diffusion effect” of peer influence

Classroom teachers are learning to employ the peer group to “shape up” dissidents. However, singling out a child may produce undesirable side effects such as emotional behavior, resentment, etc. Can the same result be obtained by rewarding the class for ignoring the target behavior of everyone in the room? Twelve subjects were selected from six middle school classes, two from each class. Each entire class was rewarded for increased ignoring of the target behavior (whispering): in the three P (pinpointed) classes, for ignoring the whispering of Designated (target) subjects; in the three D (diffusion) classes, for ignoring whispering by all class members. The results indicate that a peer group can decrease reinforcement of a disruptive behavior and thereby decelerate it in a singled-out child (Pinpointing Effect) or a behavior emitted by any child in class (Diffusion Effect) with equal effectiveness. However, patterns in the data suggest that peers ignored P-Designated subjects most, D subjects next most, and P-Undesignated subjects the least and that this pattern of ignoring was mirrored in the pattern of deceleration of the target behaviors in the three groups. These patterns suggest that the Pinpointing Effect may be stronger than the Diffusion Effect, but further study is needed.