There is considerable evidence that ToM is impaired in people with schizophrenia. However, this is perhaps the only unequivocal finding on the topic to date. Issues that demand further clarification include: Is the deficit a state or a trait? How to measure ToM in schizophrenia research, and whether certain symptoms or groups of symptoms are associated with the ToM deficit. These issues are considered and the evidence evaluated. Some priorities for future research are suggested.

No abstract

No abstract

Heider (1958) claimed that goals are normally better explanations of actions than preconditions, because people can manipulate the preconditions required for the action. Recent research supporting this view examined common actions where the conditions necessary for the action are readily available. The present studies show that when the preconditions necessary for an action are difficult to obtain, the availability of those conditions comprises a better explanation than the relevant goal. This trend is clearest with actions requiring substantial skills or money, although preconditions also rise in importance with common actions that are obstructed. These findings have important implications for theories of attribution, and they provide the basis for conceptual links between goal‐based theories and covariation models.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Divers travaux ont montrC que le locus of control et les attitudes face au risque dkterminaient les conduites devant les dangers de la nature. Deux ttudes ont tent6 de determiner lequel de ces deux facteurs Ctait le meilleur pridicteur des jugements et de la prkparation concernant les tremblements de terre. Ces notions ont 6t6 relikes h des modkles de l'attribution des digits causCs par les tremblements de terre, par l'examen de la spCcificitC des destructions sur les attributions et la complexit6 des explications. Dans les deux etudes, la premikre sur des Ctudiants, la seconde sur du tout-venant, les personnes fuyant le risque prksentaient une plus grande probabilite de s'&tre mieux preparkes aux tremblements de terre et pensaient que ce genre de destruction pouvait &tre plus facilement CvitC que la degradation gCnCrale de l'environnement. Chez les Ctudiants, la faible prise de risque Ctait reliCe h l'impression qu'un tremblement de terre Ctait vraisemblable. Les Ctudiants avec un locus of control plut6t interne prksentaient une plus forte probabiliti d'estimer que les dCgits propres aux tremblements de terre pouvaient Ctre tvitCs, tandis que les non-Ctudiants avec Cgalement un locus of control plutat interne presentaient une plus forte probabilitC de fournir des explications complexes des destructions dues aux tremblements de terre. Ces rCsultats peuvent &tre utilists pour amCliorer la prtparation aux tremblements de terre et autre alCas.Previous studies have demonstrated that locus of control and risk attitudes influence preparation for natural hazards. Two studies examined which of these two factors is the stronger predictor of earthquake judgements and preparation. These concepts were linked to attribution models of earthquake damage, by examining the effect of the distinctiveness of damage on Requests for reprints should be sent to John McClure, 240McCLURE, WALKEY, ALLEN attributions, and explanatory complexity. In both studies, the first with students and the second with non-student members of the public, low risktakers were more likely to have made more preparations for earthquakes, and distinctive damage was judged more preventable than global damage. With students, low risk-taking also predicted judgements that an earthquake was probable. Students with a more internal locus of control were more likely to judge that distinctive earthquake damage was preventable, whereas nonstudents with a more internal locus of control were more likely to give complex explanations of earthquake damage. These findings have several implications for enhancing preparedness for earthquakes and other hazards.