BOOK REVIEWS

This is a \er! clear and succmct account of decision theory. outlining the principle\ with \cr! littlc mathcmatlcal requirements. It outlme\ qublecuve expected utiht) theory as a choice principle. @oec on to the cstmlatlon 01. probahilir\. and utilit!. and then deal\ v.ith the relationship between subjective expcctcd utility theorq and dcclsl~)n-mahln~. For an>onc interested m this field. this book presents an easy to follou and easy to understand mtroducrlon whlcli \\ould Icad him straight to the literature on a fast-growing topic.

Of particular Interest to readers of this journal is Chapter 4. entitled. “lndi\ldual and Cultural Dlll’crcncc\ in Declslon-making Under Uncertaint!“. This discusses correlations between personalit) trait+,. \uch a\ auth~~rlt;~rlanlsm. lntolcrancc of amblguit!. conservatism and dogmatism. on the one hand. and verbal and numerical prohahlll\tlc thinkIng variables. on the other. The choice of personalit) variables. while not unreasonable. wa\ probahl! Ic\\ than ~~pt~mal. measures of sensation-seeklli~. risk-taking and and impulsiveness might have given htgher correlation\. More ~OSIIIW. and \er! intrigume. are the results of cultural comparisons between British. Chinese. Indonesia and Mala! <~udcnts. These seem to shov an absence of probabilistic thinking m the three non-British groups. and the author link5 thl\ \+.lth the hcha\lour of the respective natlonalitics in business in a very interesting manner. Altogether this IS a booh hIshI> to bc rccommendcd as an Introductor! text.

H. .I. EysrvK

The h!,pothesl\ that personalIt> \arlahtes such as neuroticism or trait anxlet) are correlated with ph!slolnglcal measures of the actl\lt\ of the automomlc nervous system is widely accepted. although stimulus and responcc spcclliclt! ha\c heen clcarl! Indlcstcd b> Lace! YLI Important variables in thts field. No one has done more to throu doubts on this ccneral belief than Fahrenhcrg and M!rtch. in books published in recent years and dealing \vith ver! large scale cupehments. \er! car~t‘ull! planned and cuccured. in which they tried to find evidence for or against this general theor!. Thlh boob extends th~lr \\ork to a comparison of ps\choph!slological indices measured under two conditions. once in the lahorator!. once under ticld condl~lon\. It I\ found again that the assumption is unacceptable that habltuul trait mca’\ure*l. partlculart! qurrtlonn.rlre data about cmotlonal stabillt!. can predict individual differences in actual p~!choph!~~olo~~cal record\. Slmllarl~. no ruch prcdlctlonr proled possible from the Investigation of “Personalit) T!pe A”. clthcr through Intcr\irw (,r qucsrlonnalrr. Vorc l’;~\ourablc results wzrc obtained concerning Lacey’s speclficlt! doctrine.

The m+lor purpo\c of the stud!. however. namel! the compartson between laborator) and field In\ehtlgatlonlr. led to both povll\e and negatl\c lindlngs On the posirlve side. there was some similarit! between Indi\ldual drtferences m the i.thorator! condltlo,n< and mdi\lduai differences m field conditions. However. the stabiltt! found was w mall as to render It qultc ~mp\~~hlc to male an! reasonable lilnd of predlcttons from one condition to another. For all those who betle\e 111 the reprrbentatlon <>,f \ub!ectI\e emotional ratings m psvchophqslologlcal recording. the result>. lihe tho>c of prc\~ous \\<)rh hi thc\c .1uthL,1-\. mu\t he profoundt> depressing Perhaps the \~a! out is that suggested h! Thaycr. \\ho follo\\cd L,U! in tugfc\~~ns that I~II- each Individual a specific combination of measures \\ould bc ncedcd to mahc accurate prc’dlctIc>n\ II mlghi ,IIv) bc ncce,\ar) to construct a taxonom! of stressful conditlony. \\here again It \\ould hc nccc\\ar! tc, rcg.lrd thc\c .i\ hlghl> \pccltic for each person. ClearI! the Situation IS not hopelc5s. but II \xIII reqturc \crJ \c’r~ou\ thInkIng .lh~~ut. .~nd ‘1 much more cc>mple\ cxperlmental design if positl\e results are to be obtalncd. The tradlrlonal .lpproach. ‘I\ thl\ hnoh and II. prcdcc?\\t>l-< Indlcale. 1s clearI! Inadequate. and has no empirical Iustlticatlonr. The out<t,mdlnf \\orh (71‘ thc\c .1utho1-\. \\ho h.i\c hrouzht unusual rlgour to bear on the topic. lea\t‘s little doubt on thcrc point\ P\!cholog> I\ \cr! much Indchtcd 10 ihcm for h.~\lnf \ho\\n so clearl!. in long-contmued \\orh o\er man! !rar\. that (JLII notIon\ ha\c hccn \Impll\tii. Lund rcqulrc rc\ ~\!on 11 ~cm< it pit! that the authors ha\c noi brou_rht thctr topic lnt<> rcl,~ti~~n to the \tudlcr

II2 BOOK RE\ IEU S

on synchrony and desynchrony by Rachman and Hodgson: this would have given the investigation .i wider perspective. and brought m a whole held of work which is not menttoned tn thts book Nevertheless thts is ;t very mportant contrtbution which all ps!choph~ciologists. particularly those interested in individual ditrerences m personaltty. zhould be I;imili:ir with

H .I EISF\.(h

This is an mterestingly wrttten and mercifully short book on humour. It is senstble. non-techmcal and presents some of the major theories and tindings in the field. It stresses the dtstinction between creatton of humour and consumption ot humour. which is vttally important. and it also has a chapter on individual differences and personaltty: all of these are good points. Unfortunately. the book is not well-documented and many assertions are made for which no references are given. This is particularly unfortunate because the author is not always very accurate in his presentations. Thus he mentions the Coolidge effect. m a manner suegestmg that this is true of all rats under all ctrcumstances. However. anyone familiar with the literature will know that this is quite untrue. and that there are many qualifications to be made.

Often Ziv makes unsupported statements whtch many readers will reject. Thus he suggests that we enJoy jokes m which people behave foolishly because it “gives us a sense ot momentary but enjoyable superiority”. I cannot detect any such feelings of superiority m reading these jokes. and I know of no evidence that this IS indeed the cause of amusement In other places Ziv shows little acquamtance with historical matters. as when he says that. “Until the commg of Freud. sex generally was not considered respectable enough to deserve scientists’ interests” Historically of course this is absurd: in Freud’s own Vienna. for instance. the wrttings of Weininger Krafft-Ebing. and many others were even more outspoken than Freud’s, were widely read and discussed, and certainly caused no particular scandal! Thus Ziv is an uncertain gutde on factual and htstortcal matters. and a far more detailed set of references would be needed to make one accept many ot his generalizations. This is a pity as a good book on sense of humour would certainly be welcome. particularly one that was well-written and readily understandable.

H. J. EYSESCK