Three studies suggest that individuals see the existence and operation of cognitive and motivational biases much more in others than in themselves. Study 1 provides evidence from three surveys that people rate themselves as less subject to various biases than the “average American,” classmates in a seminar, and fellow airport travelers. Data from the third survey further suggest that such claims arise from the interplay among availability biases and self-enhancement motives. Participants in one follow-up study who showed the better-than-average bias insisted that their self-assessments were accurate and objective even after reading a description of how they could have been affected by the relevant bias. Participants in a final study reported their peer’s self-serving attributions regarding test performance to be biased but their own similarly self-serving attributions to be free of bias. The relevance of these phenomena to naïve realism and to conflict, misunderstanding, and dispute resolution is discussed.

Olanzapine long-acting injection was efficacious in maintenance treatment of schizophrenia for up to 24 weeks, with a safety profile similar to oral olanzapine except for injection-related adverse events.

Olanzapine was effective in the treatment of bipolar mania in adolescent patients. Patients treated with olanzapine, however, had significantly greater weight gain and increases in the levels of hepatic enzymes, prolactin, fasting glucose, fasting total cholesterol, and uric acid.

No abstract

In a previous study, Ward (1994) reported that spatially uninformative visual cues orient auditory attention but that spatially uninfonnative auditory cues fail to orient visual attention. This cross-modal asymmetry is consistent with other intersensory perceptual phenomena that are dominated by the visual modality (e.g., ventriloquism). However, Spence and Driver (1997) found exactly the opposite asymmetry under different experimental conditions and with a different task. In spite of the several differences between the two studies, Spence and Driver (see also Driver & Spence, 1998) argued that Ward'sfindings might have arisen from response-priming effects, and that the cross-modal asymmetry they themselves reported, in which auditory cues affect responses to visual targets but not vice versa, is in fact the correct result. The present study investigated cross-modal interactions in stimulus-driven spatial attention orienting under Ward's complex cue environment conditions using an experimental procedure that eliminates response-priming artifacts. The results demonstrate that the cross-modal asymmetry reported by Ward (1994) does occur when the cue environment is complex. Weargue that strategic effects in cross-modal stimulus-driven orienting of attention are responsible for the opposite asymmetries found by Ward and by Spence and Driver (1997).Several recent studies have investigated the extent to which there are cross-modal interactions in spatial attention (Buchtel & Butter, 1988;Butter, Buchtel, & Santucci, 1989;Farah, Wong, Monheit, & Morrow, 1989;Mondor & Amirault, 1998;Spence & Driver, 1996, 1997Spence, Nicholls, Gillespie, & Driver, 1998;Ward, 1994;Ward, McDonald, & Golestani, 1998). In one of these, Ward presented evidence that spatially uninformative visual cues orient auditory attention whereas spatially uninformative auditory cues fail to orient visual attention. On the basis of this evidence, Ward concluded that the neural mechanisms underlying stimulus-driven visual and auditory attention shifts are not completely modality specific, and speculated that stimulus-driven attention shifts are based on supramodal representations of space (see Farah et al., 1989). Importantly, however, the asymmetry in the cross-modal effects observed in Ward's experiment implies that such a supramodal representation is sometimes dominated by the visual modality and that conflicts in auditory and visual spatial information in these situations are resolved in favor ofthe visual input.Ward (1994) interpreted his cross-modal attention results in the context of cross-modal asymmetries in spatial perception. Humans and other higher organisms pos-