What is a Periodical Editor? Types, Models, Characters, and Women

When we talk about women periodical editors, do we share a conceptual or definitional understanding of what we mean when we say ‘editor’, whatever our language? Does it matter if we leave the label so open that it incorporates as many types of periodical editor as there are periodicals? Can we be more categorical? And, critically, do we need to be more categorical? Accounts of editorial types that exist in the nineteenth-century British context are diverse in terms of descriptors but overwhelmingly male and white as models. Does the rich and extensive recuperation of editorial work by women over the past four decades require shared frames of understanding that counter such gendered models and that work across our different linguistic, ideological, geographical, and social territories? This discussion concludes that models and typologies are too restrictive, exclusive, and confining: they replicate and reinforce sets of privilege. Instead, we might work on developing shared sets of questions that will allow for comparative analysis across our various case studies so that we can debate issues of access, power, and influence, seek common ground, and articulate the reasons for difference.

The Persnickety Pervasiveness of Rating Enhancement in Personality Assessment

The current paper explores whether self and observer reports of personality are properly viewed through a contrasting lens (as opposed to a more consonant framework). Specifically, we challenge the assumption that self-reports are more susceptible to certain forms of response bias than are informant reports. We do so by examining whether selves and observers are similarly or differently drawn to socially desirable and/or normative influences in personality assessment. Targets rated their own personalities and recommended another person to also do so along shared sets of items diversely contaminated with socially desirable content. The recommended informant then invited a third individual to additionally make ratings of the original target. Profile correlations, analysis of variances (ANOVAs), and simple patterns of agreement/disagreement consistently converged on a strong normative effect paralleling item desirability, with all three rater types exhibiting a tendency to reject socially undesirable descriptors while also endorsing desirable indicators. These tendencies were, in fact, more prominent for informants than they were for self-raters. In their entirety, our results provide a note of caution regarding the strategy of using non-self informants as a comforting comparative benchmark within psychological measurement applications.

Is religiousness a form of variation in personality, or in culture, or neither? Conceptual issues and empirical indications

It has become widely recognized that religiousness has a predictable pattern of small associations with Big Five personality dimensions, and has some intersections with cultural psychology. But just how large are those culture-religiosity intersections, and are there additional associations with personality when one extends beyond the restricted spectrum represented by Big Five traits? Moreover, do the answers to these questions depend on how religiousness is defined and measured? I argue that, both conceptually and empirically, religiousness itself meets the criteria for a personality dimension (including stability, heritability, and other grounds), and is simultaneously for the most part a cultural phenomenon reflecting often widely shared sets of beliefs, values, worldviews, and norms. The patterns of modest associations with other personality dimensions, from the Big Five and beyond, are consistent with both arguments. A distributive model of culture, under which culture is aggregated personalities (and especially mindsets) helps make sense of these relations. Tradition-oriented religiousness tends to have a prominent position in enduring-order (as contrasted with evolving-order) cultures, which helps account for its occasional expressions in political religion. In contrast, mystical spirituality is more prone to manifest as a sub-cultural phenomenon peripheral to mainstream culture. But for either conception—religiousness or spirituality—the same personality-and-culture propositions appear to hold. Nonetheless, religiousness seems not totally reducible to a variable for personality or cultural psychology, and considerations are introduced regarding what that irreducible element is most likely to be.

Uniqueness of meromorphic function with its shift operator under the purview of two or three shared sets

Taking two and three shared set problems into background, the uniqueness problem of a meromorphic function together with its shift operator have been studied. Our results will improve a number of recent results in the literature. Some examples have been provided in the last section to show that certain conditions used in the paper, is the best possible.

On some sufficient conditions for periodicity of meromorphic function under new shared sets

This paper deals with the two set sharing problem related to the uniqueness of a function and its shift operator. With the help of two new range sets we shall significantly improve a number of results in the literature. At the last section we shall exhibit certain examples to show that some conditions used in our results are the best possible.