Why do doctored images distort memory?

Doctored images can cause people to believe in and remember experiences that never occurred, yet the underlying mechanism(s) responsible are not well understood. How does compelling false evidence distort autobiographical memory? Subjects were filmed observing and copying a Research Assistant performing simple actions, then they returned 2 days later for a memory test. Before taking the test, subjects viewed video-clips of simple actions, including actions that they neither observed nor performed earlier. We varied the format of the video-clips between-subjects to tap into the source-monitoring mechanisms responsible for the 'doctored-evidence effect.' The distribution of belief and memory distortions across conditions suggests that at least two mechanisms are involved: doctored images create an illusion of familiarity, and also enhance the perceived credibility of false suggestions. These findings offer insight into how external evidence influences source-monitoring. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Corporate coalitions and policy making in the European Union:how and why British American tobacco promoted "better regulation"

Over the past fifteen years, an interconnected set of regulatory reforms, knownas Better Regulation, has been adopted across Europe, marking a significant shift in theway that European Union policies are developed. There has been little exploration of the origins of these reforms, which include mandatory ex ante impact assessment. Drawing on documentary and interview data, this article discusses how and why large corporations, notably British American Tobacco (BAT), worked to influence and promote these reforms. Our analysis highlights (1) howpolicy entrepreneurs with sufficient resources (such as large corporations) can shape the membership and direction of advocacy coalitions; (2) the extent to which "think tanks" may be prepared to lobby on behalf of commercial clients; and (3) why regulated industries (including tobacco) may favor the use of "evidence tools," such as impact assessments, in policy making. We argue that a key aspect of BAT's ability to shape regulatory reform involved the deliberate construction of a vaguely defined idea that could be strategically adapted to appeal to diverse constituencies.We discuss the theoretical implications of this finding for the Advocacy Coalition Framework, as well as the practical implications of the findings for efforts to promote transparency and public health in the European Union.

Formative variables and unreal variables:why the formative MIMIC model is invalid

In this rejoinder, we provide a response to the three commentaries written by Diamantopoulos, Howell, and Rigdon (all this issue) on our paper The MIMIC Model and Formative Variables: Problems and Solutions (also this issue). We contrast the approach taken in the latter paper (where we focus on clarifying the assumptions required to reject the formative MIMIC model) by spending time discussing what assumptions would be necessary to accept the use of the formative MIMIC model as a viable approach. Importantly, we clarify the implications of entity realism and show how it is entirely logical that some theoretical constructs can be considered to have real existence independent of their indicators, and some cannot. We show how the formative model only logically holds when considering these ‘unreal’ entities. In doing so, we provide important counter-arguments for much of the criticisms made in Diamantopoulos’ commentary, and the distinction also helps clarify a number of issues in the commentaries of Howell and Rigdon (both of which in general agree with our original paper). We draw together these various threads to provide a set of conceptual tools researchers can use when thinking about the entities in their theoretical models.

Why resilience managers aren’t resilient, and what human resource management can do about it

Prior resilience research typically focuses on either the individual or the organisational level of analysis, emphasises resilience in relation to day-to-day stressors rather than extreme events and is empirically under-developed. In response, our study inductively theorises about the relationships between individual and organisational resilience, drawing upon a large-scale study of resilience work in UK and French organisations. Our first-hand accounts of resilience work reveal the micro-processes involved in producing resilient organisations, and highlight the challenges experienced in doing resilience work in large organisations. We show that these micro-processes have significant implications for resilience at both individual and organisational levels, and draw implications for how HRM interventions can help to promote individual, and thus organisational, resilience.

Introduction : why are discursive approaches to language policy necessary?

This volume is a series of explorations of language policy from a discursive perspective. Its chief aim is to systematically explore the interconnectedness of language policy and discourse through what we are terming ‘discursive approaches to language policy’ (DALP). We show that language policy is a multilayered phenomenon that is constituted and enacted in and through discourse (which is defined more closely in Sect. 1.2). Language policy is a fast-growing, vibrant, and interdisciplinary field of inquiry that offers a variety of theoretical frameworks, methodologies, analytic approaches, and empirical findings: the framing sections at the beginning of each part of this volume and the commentary at the end frame the discussion of developments in language policy and especially the role of DALP therein.

Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions:why the difference matters

Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.