Commentary: sex difference differences? A reply to Constantino

Commentary: “Rabies in Iranian Traditional Medicine” & Reply to Commentary on “Rabies in Iran: Past, Present and Future”

Data from the Baby Siblings Research Consortium confirm and specify the nature of the female protective effect in autism: A commentary on Messinger et al.

Sibling recurrence data from the Baby Siblings Research Consortium (BSRC) recapitulate results from very large clinical family studies that demonstrate the absence of the Carter effect and provide clarification of the nature of the female protective effect in ASD. This legacy prospective data collection confirmed marked differences in the proportions of males versus females who lie along devian...

Constructivism and Development: Reply to Smith’s Commentary

This article is a reply to the commentary made by Smith (1998) regarding these authors’ earlier article (1998), which proposes a modified constructivist account of the origins of mental representation. This article focuses on three aspects of Smith’s commentary. First, we elaborate on Smith’s discussion of differences between empiricist and constructivist approaches to development. Second, we d...

Radically Questioning the Principle of the Least Restrictive Alternative: A Reply to Nir Eyal; Comment on “Nudging by Shaming, Shaming by Nudging”

In his insightful editorial, Nir Eyal explores the connections between nudging and shaming. One upshot of his argument is that we should question the principle of the least restrictive alternative in public health and health policy. In this commentary, I maintain that Eyal’s argument undermines only a rather implausible version of the principle of the least restrictive alternative and I sketch ...

EBE Theory Supported by the Evidence ? Is It Androcentric ? A Reply to Peplau

In their critique of the author's Exotic-Becomes-Erotic (EBE) theory of sexual orientation (D. J. Bern, 1996), L. A. Peplau, L. D. Garnets, L. R. Spalding, T. D. Conley, and R. C. Veniegas (1998) challenge his reading of the evidence concerning the antecedents of sexual orientation; they also contend that the theory neglects women's experiences. In reply, the author argues that L. A. Peplau et ...