Coping with a major stressor: differences between habitual short- and longer-sleepers.

We compared the coping strategies of 39 short-sleepers and 33 longer-sleepers to the stresses associated with the October 17, 1989 San Francisco Bay Area earthquake using their responses to the eight scales of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Over-all, the short-sleepers scored significantly higher on this questionnaire and in general, the pattern of their responses was consistent with inferences that could be drawn from a 1972 paper by Hartmann, Baekeland, and Zwilling.     

Interview with Dr. Peter Rutter,author ofSex in the Forbidden Zone,July 27, 1990

Articles

Interview with Dr. Peter Rutter, author ofSex in the Forbidden Zone, July 27, 1990     

A comparative evaluation of parent-training interventions for families of chronic delinquents

Fifty-five families of chronically offending delinquents were randomly assigned to parent-training treatment or to service traditionally provided by the juvenile court and community. The families in the parent-training group received an average of 44.8 hours of professional contact (23.3 hours of which were phone contacts), and each control group family received treatment estimated at more than 50 hours on the average. Comparisons of police contact data at baseline and subsequent years for the two groups showed that subjects in both groups demonstrated reduced rates of offending during the followup years. The finding most relevant was significant treatment-by-time effect for offense rates, with most of this effect accounted for by a greater reduction in serious crimes for the experimental group during the treatment year, and a similar reduction of the community control group occurring in the first of three followup years. These early decrements in offense rates persisted during followup for both groups. Throughout the study, boys in the experimental group spent significantly less time in institutional settings than did boys in the control group. Parent training had a significant impact, but the reduction in offending was produced at very high emotional cost to staff. Although it is clear that this population requires substantial treatment resources, this study underscores the need for more work on prevention.Research for this paper was supported by grant MH 37938 from the Center for Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The writing was supported in part by grants MH 17126 and MH 37940 from the same Center, grant DA 05304 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, U.S. PHS., and grant MH 38730 from the Child and Adolescent Disorders Research Branch, NIMH, U.S. PHS. The authors gratefully acknowledge the enduring commitment of the treatment staff that made this study possible: Patricia Chamberlain, Marion Forgatch, and Kate Kavanagh.     

Men's and women's evaluations of menstrual-related excuses

Based on an attributional analysis of menstrual distress, the present study examined how a woman is evaluated when she attributes an instance of negative social behavior to the approach or onset of menstruation. College men and women were asked to imagine an interaction in which a woman behaves very irritably and then gives one of several excuses for her negative behavior, two of which were menstrual related. Subjects evaluated each excuse in terms of (1) degree of annoyance, (2) blameworthiness, and (3) internality versus externality. The results showed consistent relationships between these evaluations and both sex of subject and general attitudes about menstruation. Males tended to see menstrual-related excuses as less blameworthy and more external than did females. In addition, general attitudes regarding the debilitating effects of menstruation predicted greater tolerance toward the use of menstrual excuses. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for the socialization and continuing reinforcement of menstrual distress.The research reported in this article was supported by grants SOC-7602137 and SOC-7602179 from the National Science Foundation. The authors wish to thank Russ Fazio for his help in collecting the data and Al Rogers and Terry Balaban for their help in analyzing the data. Diane N. Ruble is now at New York University. Ann K. Boggiano is now at the University of Colorado.     

Assertion modeling and stimuli effects on assertive behavior and self-efficacy in adolescents

The present investigation examined variations of modeling and stimuli with 61 adolescents selected for unassertive or aggressive behavior toward teachers. A 3 × 2 × 2 factorial design evaluated the effects of type of assertion modeling (three sessions of overt vs covert vs no-modeling), type of training stimuli (single involving teachers only vs multiple involving teachers, parents and peers) and type of initial behavior (unassertive vs aggressive) on behavioral role-play and self-efficacy. Modeling, particularly overt modeling, improved assertive behavior in teacher situations, peer situations and total teacher, parent, and peer situations. The use of single type stimuli improved self-efficacy in total teacher, parent and peer situations, and in novel situations involving others. Behavior but not self-efficacy was differentially affected by initial unassertive or aggressive behavior of participants. Self-efficacy and behavior were only moderately correlated. Results suggest effectiveness of short-term modeling with adolescents and different specificity properties of self-efficacy and assertive behavior.     

A negativity bias in interpersonal evaluation

Two studies were conducted to demonstrate a bias toward negativity in evaluations of persons or their work in particular social circumstances. In Study 1, subjects evaluated materials written by peers. Those working under conditions that placed them in low status relative to the audience for their evaluations, or conditions that made their intellectual position within a group insecure, showed a clear bias toward negativity in those evaluations. Only individuals who believed their audience to be of relatively low status and at the same time believed their intellectual position to be secure did not show this bias. In Study 2, subjects viewed a videotape of a stimulus person and rated him on several intellectual and social dimensions. Again, subjects believed their audience to be of either relatively high or relatively low status. As a cross dimension, they were given instructions to focus on either the intellectual or the social abilities of the stimulus person while viewing the videotape. A strong main effect of audience status was demonstrated, but only in ratings of intellectual traits; subjects who believed their audience to be of relatively high status rated the stimulus person's intellectual qualities significantly more negatively. Moreover, this effect was independent of the instructional focus subjects had been given. The negativity bias is discussed in the context of previous demonstrations of biases toward weighting negative information more heavily than positive information, as well as previous demonstrations of seemingly pervasive positivity biases in memory and judgment.