Background: Individuals with a first-degree relative who has had colorectal cancer are at increased risk for colorectal cancer and thus can benefit from early detection. Tailored risk counseling may increase adherence to screening guidelines in these persons. The present study evaluated a culturally sensitive Colon Cancer Risk Counseling (CCRC) intervention for relatives of colorectal cancer patients. Methods: A randomized trial evaluated personalized CCRC sessions with print materials and follow-up phone calls compared with a comparable General Health Counseling (GHC) intervention. One hundred and seventy-six siblings and children of colorectal cancer patients, living in Hawaii, were assessed at baseline and 4 and 12 months after intervention. Physician verification of colorectal cancer screening reports supplemented survey data.

On an automated task, humans selected the larger of two sets of items, each created through the one-by-one addition of items. Participants repeated the alphabet out loud during trials so that they could not count the items. This manipulation disrupted counting without producing major effects on other cognitive capacities such as memory or attention, and performance of this experimental group was poorer than that of participants who counted the items. In Experiment 2, the size of individual items was varied, and performance remained stable when the larger numerical set contained a smaller total amount than the smaller numerical set (i.e., participants used numerical rather than nonnumerical quantity cues in making judgements). In Experiment 3, reports of the number of items in a single set showed scalar variability as accuracy decreased, and variability in responses increased with increases in true set size. These data indicate a mechanism for the approximate representation of numerosity in adult humans that might be shared with nonhuman animals.

Individuals differ not only in the ability to make decisions, but also in the degree to which they respond adaptively to uncertainty about those decisions. We examined how optimally 124 participants used an uncertain response on near-threshold trials of a psychophysical task. All participants showed overconfidence, but women tended to be more adaptive than men in responsiveness to uncertainty. Participants who responded to uncertainty most optimally exhibited more cognitive failures, fewer attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder symptoms, greater need for closure, better attention scanning skills, but larger effects of Stroop-task incongruity compared with participants who were least optimal in responsiveness to uncertainty. These data suggest that response competition might provide a mechanism for the cognitive experience of uncertainty. Keywords attention; gender differences; monitoring; personality; uncertainty A PHYSICIAN EXAMINES an array of medical records. She is your physician. They are your records. Test results, symptom descriptions, X-rays, and other data provide conflicting and ambiguous clues about your physical health. Medical references and journal articles supply information on a host of candidate diseases and treatment options. Perhaps everything is fine and your illness is minor-but perhaps not.At times like these, you want your physician to be the best diagnostician available. You need someone who is highly skilled at discriminating between tumor and shadow, between test results that suggest a serious disorder and those that indicate a transient condition, between a health issue that requires immediate treatment and one that lacks urgency. But what other cognitive attributes might you value in your physician at times like this? Is your physician one who, when in doubt, will rely on intuition and make a best guess? Will she order more tests, consult a colleague for a second opinion, and research the symptoms further? Will your physician recognize when she doesn't really know what to diagnose? How will she respond to

Screeners at airport security checkpoints perform an important categorization task in which they search for threat items in complex x-ray images. But little is known about how the processes of categorization stand up to visual complexity. The authors filled this research gap with screening tasks in which participants searched for members of target categories in visual displays. The authors found that when targets were sampled with replacement and repetition, participant screeners relied on recognizing familiar targets and had great difficulty using category-general knowledge. The authors observed a "heartbeat" in detection performance--it improved while test images repeated but dropped sharply when unfamiliar targets from the same categories appeared. This reliance on familiarity illuminates the processes of categorization under conditions of visual complexity and suggests limits on those processes. This reliance also has implications for the training and evaluation of screeners in the field.