Objective: Aron and Aron (1997) developed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) to measure individual differences in sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS). Their experiments showed that sensitivity is a one-dimensional construct characterized by high susceptibility to both external (e.g. light, noise) and internal (hunger, pain) stimuli (Aron 2013), later studies which were conducted using the HSPS, disagreed their concept. Further studies of the SPS construct are justified by the following: a Russian version of HSPS questionnaire has not yet been developed; the inner structure of the construct has not yet been conclusively defined (Aron and Aron, 2012), a different method of statistical data analysis may be required; the vast majority of studies, were using small homogeneous groups for sampling. Thus, the purpose of the present study was the psychometric evaluation of the Highly sensitive person scale using Russian data samples. Method: Two approaches -active and passive -were employed to collect the field data. The active approach used verbal advertising among undergraduate university students, i.e. the 'snowball method', whereas the passive approach relied on social media advertisements in Facebook and VK.com. 860 respondents participated in the study: 350 undergraduate university student volunteers (117 males, 233 females, average age 18.2) and 510 social media users (380 females, 130 males, average age 22.6). Results:The results of this study did not confirm the one-dimension model of sensitivity suggested in Aron and Aron (1997), nether was the threefactor model suggested by others. The hierarchical cluster and confirmatory analyses employed for the operationalization procedure suggest that sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) can be described in a two-factor model consisting of 'Ease of Excitation' and 'Low Sensory Threshold' subscales. The "Aesthetic Sensitivity" factor was identified during hierarchical cluster analysis, but showed very low correlation with the other factors "Ease of Excitation" and "Low Sensory Threshold". This result encourages us to look deeper into the conceptual model of HSPS developed in Aron and Aron (1997). Conclusion: The operationalization of the Russian version of HSPS confirmed that the SPS is multidimensional construct. The precise number of subscales remains open. The term sensitivity has many meanings in modern psychology, a more rigorous definition of the sensitivity construct is required.

The interpersonal theory of personality has been applied to explain depressed people's dilemma: The depressed person's submissive behavior invites dominating reactions from other people, and those reactions sustain the depressed person's depression. Experiments I and 2 showed that selfderogations connote submissiveness but are generally judged to be neutral in affiliation. Experiment 3 tested implications for the behavior of dysphoric and nondysphoric Ss as they interacted with a self-derogating, other-derogating, or nonderogating confederate partner. Ss selected a topic from a list and talked about it for 1 rain; the confederates script was fixed. The S's judgments of the confederate, choice of topics, satisfaction with the interaction, and actual responses were analyzed. Self-derogators were judged to be submissive, elicited dominating reactions, and selected more topics with negative content.

No abstract

In a large and detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship, members of the American Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on his or her last published paper. Results show that the first or second coauthors are more appropriate than later coauthors about whom there is equal and considerable doubt. The probability of any third and subsequent coauthors being judged as inappropriate is 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 59% if the guideline requires "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention". Only 3% of respondents report having personally rejected an undeserving scientist who expected to be an author on the last published paper. Respondents seem to be divided into two non-overlapping populations--those who report no inappropriate coauthorship and those who have a more graduated view.

The functional relationship between correct response probability and response time is investigated in data sets from Rubin, Hinton and Wenzel, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:1161-1176 and Anderson, J Exp Psychol [Hum Learn] 7:326-343, 1981. The two measures are linearly related through stimulus presentation lags from 0 to 594 s in the former experiment and for repeated learning of words in the latter. The Tagging/Retagging interpretation of short term memory is introduced to explain this linear relationship. At stimulus presentation the words are tagged. This tagging level drops slowly with time. When a probe word is reintroduced the tagging level has to increase for the word to be properly identified leading to a delay in response time. The tagging time is related to the meaningfulness of the words used-the more meaningful the word the longer the tagging time. After stimulus presentation the tagging level drops in a logarithmic fashion to 50% after 10 s and to 20% after 240 s. The incorrect recall and recognition times saturate in the Rubin et al. data set (they are not linear for large time lags), suggesting a limited time to search the short term memory structure: the search time for recall of unusual words is 1.7 s. For recognition of nonsense words the corresponding time is about 0.4 s, similar to the 0.243 s found in Cavanagh (1972).