Search

The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of occupationally exposed employees at a large teaching hospital about wearing their assigned personal radiation dosimeters. A 16-question multiple-answer survey was used to report the reasons why medical professionals may not wear their dosimetry during procedures involving ionizing radiation. In all, 302 employees responded to the survey. The majority of respondents who reported always or almost always wearing their dosimeters do so because they consider themselves well informed concerning the importance of personal dosimetry measurement and appreciate the importance of federal and state regulations. For respondents who reported not always wearing their dosimeters, the most commonly stated reason was the inconvenience of remembering to bring and wear their dosimeters when working in multiple locations, for which a potential solution would be to provide dosimeters to each affected wearer in each location where they work.

Suppose that disgust can provide evidence of moral wrongdoing. What account of disgust might make sense of this? A recent and promising theory is the social contagion view, proposed by Alexandra Plakias. After criticizing both its descriptive and normative claims, I draw two conclusions. First, we should question the wisdom of drawing so straight a line from biological poisons and pathogens to social counterparts. Second, we don’t need to explain the evidential value of disgust by appealing to what the response tracks. These lessons point toward an alternative: namely, that disgust is a moral heuristic. On the heuristic view, disgust is a trigger for the subconscious use of a particular rule: I show how this view fits with a plausible hypothesis about the social function of disgust, and then apply it to Leon Kass’s famous use of repugnance to criticize cloning.

To write a language, one must first abstract the unit to be used from the acoustic stream of speech. Writing systems based on the meaningless units, syllables and phonemes, were late developments in the history of written language. The alphabetic system, which requires abstraction of the phonemic unit of speech, was the last to appear, evolved from a syllabary and, unlike the other systems, was apparently invented only once. It might therefore be supposed that phoneme segmentation is particularly difficult and more difficult, indeed, than syllable segmentation. Speech research suggests reasons why this may be so. The present study provides direct evidence of a similar developmental ordering of syllable and phoneme segmentation abilities in the young child. By means of a task which required preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade children to tap out the number of segments in spoken utterances, it was found that, though ability in both syllable and phoneme segmentation increased with grade level, analysis into phonemes was significantly harder and perfected later than analysis into syllables. The relative difficulties of the different units of segmentation are discussed in relation to reading acquisition.

The connection between spelling and pronunciation in many English words is somewhat remote. To spell accurately, a writer may need to appreciate that the orthography maps regularities of more than one kind. Two experiments explored the possibility that young adults who differ in spelling ability also differ in sensitivity to morphophonemic structure and word formational principles that underlie the regularities of English spelling. In the first, an analysis of misspellings showed that poor spellers were less able than good spellers to exploit regularities at the surface phonetic level and were less able to access the underlying morphophonemic structure of words. A second experiment used pseudowords to extend these findings and to confirm that spelling competence involves apprehension of generalizations that can be applied to new instances.

The extent to which ability to access linguistic regularities of the orthography is dependent on spoken language was investigated in a two-part spelling test administered to both hearing and profoundly deaf college students. The spelling test examined ability to spell words varying in the degree to which their correct orthographic representation could be derived from the linguistic structure of English. Both groups of subjects were found to be sensitive to the underlying regularities of the orthography as indicated by greater accuracy on linguistically-derivable words than on irregular words. Comparison of accuracy on a production task and on a multiple-choice recognition task showed that the performance of both deaf and hearing subjects benefited from the recognition format, but especially so in the spelling of irregular words. Differences in the underlying spelling process for deaf and hearing spellers were revealed in an analysis of their misspellings: Deaf subjects produced fewer phonetically accurate misspellings than did the hearing subjects. Nonetheless, the deaf spellers tended to observe the formational constraints of English phonology and morphology in their misspellings. Together, these results suggest that deaf subjects are able to develop an appreciation for the structural properties of the orthography, but that their spelling may be guided by an accurate representation of the phonetic structure of words to a lesser degree than it is for hearing spellers.

The pattern of errors in reading isolated words was studied in two groups of children with respect, particularly, to reversals of letter sequence and letter orientation. One group (the Institute group) consisted of children 8 to 10 years old who had been diagnosed "dyslexic" according to medical and psychoeducational criteria. The other (the School group) included all the children in a second-year elementary school class (see Liberman, Shankweiler, Orlando, Harris and Berti, 1971) who fell into the lowest third on a standard test of reading achievement. Although the Institute children were somewhat poorer in word recognition than the backward readers selected purely on psychometric grounds, the groups did not differ significantly in the incidence of reversal errors. Also, for both groups, reversals represented a small proportion of the total number of reading errors. The performance of the two groups differed in two respects: in relation to directional bias in letter reversals and in the presence or absence of a significant correlation between letter-reversing and word-reversing tendencies. It was concluded from this that directional problems do not loom large in importance in most cases of reading backwardness, but may provide an additional source of difficulty for some dyslexic children. Other aspects of the error pattern were remarkably the same for both groups. The bulk of reading errors made by both groups reflect their common difficulties in phonemic segmentation of words in the lexicon, in phonetic recoding, and in mastery of the orthography--difficulties, in short, with linguistic characteristics of words rather than with their properties as visual patterns.