Systems Research and Behavioral Science
About: Systems Research and Behavioral Science is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Systems thinking & Population. Over the lifetime, 3511 publication(s) have been published receiving 83826 citation(s).
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The historical evolution, development, rationale and validation of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist is described, a self-report symptom inventory comprised of 58 items which are representative of the symptom configurations commonly observed among outpatients.
Abstract: This report describes the historical evolution, development, rationale and validation of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL), a self-report symptom inventory. The HSCL is comprised of 58 items which are representative of the symptom configurations commonly observed among outpatients. It is scored on five underlying symptom dimensions—sommatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety and depression—which have been identified in repeated factor analyses. A series of studies have established the factorial invariance of the primary symptom dimensions, and substantial evidence is given in support of their construct validity. Normative data in terms of both discrete symptoms and primary symptom dimensions are presented on 2,500 subjects—1,800 psychiatric outpatients and 700 normals. Indices of pathology reflect both intensity of distress and prevalence of symptoms in the normative samples. Standard indices of scale reliability are presented, and a broad range of criterion-related validity studies, in particular an important series reflecting sensitivity to treatment with psychotherapeutic drugs, are reviewed and discussed.
TL;DR: In this paper, the concept of power is defined in terms of a relation between people, and is expressed in simple symbolic notation, and a statement of power comparability is developed, or the relative degree of power held by two or more persons.
Abstract: What is “power”? Most people have an intuitive notion of what it means. But scientists have not yet formulated a statement of the concept of power that is rigorous enough to be of use in the systematic study of this important social phenomenon. Power is here defined in terms of a relation between people, and is expressed in simple symbolic notation. From this definition is developed a statement of power comparability, or the relative degree of power held by two or more persons. With these concepts it is possible for example, to rank members of the United States Senate according to their “power” over legislation on foreign policy and on tax and fiscal policy.
TL;DR: A sequential experiment that provides, at each stage in the sequence, an estimate of the utility to the subject of some amount of a commodity, and to present a few experimental results obtained with the method.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to describe a sequential experiment that provides, at each stage in the sequence, an estimate of the utility to the subject of some amount of a commodity (e.g., money), and to present a few experimental results obtained with the method. The procedure is based upon the following well-known ‘expected utility hypothesis’. For each person there exist numerical constants, called utilities, associated with the various possible outcomes of his actions, given the external events not under his control. If, for a given subject, we could know the values of these constants and the (‘personal’) probabilities he assigns to the various external events we could, according to this model, predict his choice from among any available set of actions. He will choose an action with the highest expected utility; i.e., with the highest average of utilities of outcomes, weighted by the probabilities he assigns to the corresponding events. He will be indifferent between any two actions with equal expected utilities. Note that (by the nature of weighted averages) the comparison between expected utilities does not depend on which two particular outcomes are regarded as having zero-utility and unit-utility.
TL;DR: The theory of schizophrenia is based on communications analysis, and specifically on the Theory of Logical Types as discussed by the authors, and from observations of schizophrenic patients is derived a description, and the necessary conditions for, a situation called the double bind, where no matter what a person does, he "can't win".
Abstract: Schizophrenia—its nature, etiology, and the kind of therapy to use for it—remains one of the most puzzling of the mental illnesses. The theory of schizophrenia presented here is based on communications analysis, and specifically on the Theory of Logical Types. From this theory and from observations of schizophrenic patients is derived a description, and the necessary conditions for, a situation called the “double bind”—a situation in which no matter what a person does, he “can't win.” It is hypothesized that a person caught in the double bind may develop schizophrenic symptoms. How and why the double bind may arise in a family situation is discussed, together with illustrations from clinical and experimental data.
TL;DR: This paper proposes an analytic framework for understanding the complexities of motivational problems in an organization.
Abstract: How, and to what extent, do people become involved in an organization and committed to its goals? If an organization is to survive and to function effectively, it must require not one, but several different types of behavior from most of its members, and the motivations for these different types of behavior may also differ. How does a business organization attract the kind of people it needs? How does it hold them? How does it induce both reliable performance and spontaneous innovation an the part of its members? This paper proposes an analytic framework for understanding the complexities of motivational problems in an organization.
Related Journals (5)
Journal of the Operational Research Society
8.6K papers, 332.5K citations
Journal of Social Issues
3.1K papers, 249.7K citations
10.8K papers, 1M citations
23.3K papers, 313.1K citations
3.9K papers, 302.7K citations