Two self-report experiments examined how religiosity affects attributions made for a target person's death. Online adults (Study 1, N = 427) and undergraduate students (Study 2, N = 326) read about Chris who had a heart attack, used religious or health behaviors, and lived or died. Participants made attributions to Chris and God (both studies), and reported their emotions (Study 2). Participants made more attributions to Chris when he lived than when he died, but only when he used health behaviors. The highly religious made more attributions to God, but not when Chris used religious behaviors and died (the God-serving bias); they reported the most positive emotions when Chris lived after using religious behaviors (the Hallelujah effect). Directions for future research in terms of implicit religious beliefs and normative evaluations of religion are discussed.

It is almost a cliché that as theories gain in explanatory breadth, they lose in predictive power and as they gain in predictive power, they lose in explanatory breadth. We acknowledge that it is easy to generate examples in psychology that seem to exemplify the tradeoff between explanatory breadth and predictive power. Nevertheless, we believe that the tradeoff is far less clear-cut than psychology researchers have understood. Our argument is based on the necessity to make auxiliary assumptions when traversing the distance between non-observational terms in theories and observational terms in empirical hypotheses.Keywords auxiliary assumptions, explanatory breadth, non-observational terms, observational terms, predictive powerThe argument has often been made that there is a tension between two widely accepted criteria on which researchers evaluate theories. On the one hand, theories are supposed to have explanatory breadth; better theories are more basic and cover more territory than do lesser theories. On the other hand, theories are supposed to have predictive power; better theories can make more precise predictions than can lesser theories. But many authorities have suggested that these two desiderata are involved in a tradeoff (Beven,

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of certain characteristics of family business decision-making processes (customer orientation and open and negotiating family decision-making styles) to business and family goal achievement as mediated by emotions (family supportiveness). We undertook this study to better understand why certain family businesses make consistently better decisions than others, leading them to earn more money and have family members who are happier in their home lives. Decision theory undergirded the study development. The sample consisted of 277 family business owners, and the data are from the National Family Business Panel data set. Our results showed that if the business owners focused on customer satisfaction and product quality when making decisions, they tended to make more money and tended to be happier at home. If families made business decisions in open and negotiating ways, their members were happier about their decisions because they felt supported by the other family members. Furthermore, family members who felt good about the support they got from their family members in their business decision-making were also happier in their home lives in general.

Two self-report experiments examined how religiosity affects attributions made for the outcome of a tornado. Undergraduate students (N = 533) and online adults (N = 537) read a fictional vignette about a tornado that hits a small town in the United States. The townspeople met at church and prayed or prepared emergency shelters for three days before the tornado; either no one died or over 200 people died from the tornado. Participants made attributions of cause to God, prayer, faith, and worship. In both studies, individuals identifying as Christian made more attributions to God, prayer, faith, and worship, but only when no one died; when townspeople died, Christian participants made fewer attributions to God, prayer, faith, and worship (the God-serving bias). Individuals identifying as agnostic or atheist did not show this bias. Directions for future research in terms of implicit religious beliefs and normative evaluations of religion are discussed.

Confidence intervals (CIs) constitute the most popular alternative to widely criticized null hypothesis significance tests. CIs provide more information than significance tests and lend themselves well to visual displays. Although CIs are no better than significance tests when used solely as significance tests, researchers need not limit themselves to this use of CIs. Rather, CIs can be used to estimate the precision of the data, and it is the precision argument that may set CIs in a superior position to significance tests. We tested two versions of the precision argument by performing computer simulations to test how well sample-based CIs estimate a priori CIs. One version pertains to precision of width whereas the other version pertains to precision of location. Using both versions, sample-based CIs poorly estimate a priori CIs at typical sample sizes and perform better as sample sizes increase.