Seasonal progression and variability of repeat-effort line-drill performance in elite junior basketball players

To determine gender differences, positional differences, and patterns of change in the performance of the basketball line-drill test, 93 male (mean age 16.8 years, s = 1.1) and 95 female (mean age 16.5 years, s = 1.0) basketball players undertook 516 line-drill tests over a 5-year period. Log-transformed performance times were analysed using a mixed model that included quadratic within-participant fixed effects for time in the season and time in the programme. Changes and differences were standardized for interpretation of magnitudes. Mean performance times were 28.0 s (s = 1.3) for males and 30.4 s (s = 1.3) for females. The mean pattern of change in performance within a season differed substantially between the sexes and playing positions: male guards and female centres showed moderate to very large improvements mid-season of 1.1% and 3.5% respectively (90% confidence limits +/-2.1% and +/-3.0%), while female guards and male forwards showed large to very large decrements of -1.6% (+/-2.6%) and -2.4% (+/-2.0%). Over 3 years, males improved performance across all three playing positions by 1.4% (+/-1.3%) and females by 2.9% (+/-1.4%). Males improved performance by 0.2% (+/-0.5%) per year, whereas the performance of females deteriorated by 0.6% (+/-0.4%) per year. The differing patterns of performance change presumably reflect variations in training and competition loads, with short-term fluctuations in performance being managed to promote longer-term improvements.     

The natural sciences,the social sciences and politics

Conclusion The social sciences stand at a strange crossroads. There is a greater need for disciplined inquiry into the issues of policy facing the United States. Yet the incentives in the political system, and in the professional guilds of those performing social research, discourage a close involvement of many prominent social scientists with policy. The political system, fearing an elite imposing its values on society, welcomes the natural scientist who seems to conform to the model of the politically neutral expert who solves problems and addresses facts. This model also fits the higher ranks of the civil service, made up of specialists rather than generalist administrators, and the outside advisers serving officials concerned with high policy. Likewise, to protect themselves from changes of partisanship, leading academic social scientists forsake policy concerns for topics within the analytic traditions of Weberian Wertfreiheit. Just as Weber sought to avoid censorship by value neutral scholarship, the modern social scientist disdains the normative concerns of policy in favour of more tractable, morally neutral issues defined as the core of the discipline.The country needs to draw some of the best analytical talent in the social science community into the policy process and advisory roles. Disciplined inquiry cannot be left only to technicians whose professional interests are far removed from political, economic, social and other human sciences. To promote better policy and better social science, we should encourage serious, professionally grounded inquiry into social values, the directions of policy, and the role and proper limits of state power. In the clamour of American politics, there is little danger that policy will be monopolised by an elite group, but considerable danger that debate on policy will be impoverished by the absence of those most knowledgeable about social and economic reality.A revised and expanded version of the first Dael L. Wolfle Lecture given on 6 October, 1987, at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle. Don K. Price was dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and is the author ofGovernment and Science (1954),The Scientific Estate (1965) andAmerica's Unwritten Constitution (1983). He has held senior posts in the United States Bureau of the Budget, the Defense Research and Development Board, and the Ford Foundation, and was an adviser to Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.     

It's Just Your Imagination: The Effect of Imagery on Recognition of Product- Versus Non-Product-Related Information in Radio Advertisements

This experiment tested the effects of imagery on recognition of product- versus non-product-related information in radio ads. Participants listened to four high-imagery and four low-imagery, 60-second spots. After a distracter task, participants were given a four alternative, forced choice, recognition test. The recognition test consisted of three product-related and three non-product-related questions for each ad. Recognition of product-related information was significantly lower than recognition of non-product information in high-imagery ads. There was no significant difference between recognition of productversus non-product information in low-imagery spots. Theoretical and practical implications of the results for understanding information processing of radio and producing effective high-imagery radio spots are discussed.