Gender differences in power and self-disclosure in dating and married couples

The relationship between power and self-disclosure was studied for 20 dating and 20 married couples. Power and self-disclosure scales (of feelings and of accomplishments) were constructed and administered individually. We hypothesized that: (1) Women disclose more about feelings than men. (2) Men disclose more about accomplishments than women. (3) Power is positively correlated with disclosure of accomplishments. (4) Power is negatively correlated with disclosure of feelings and weaknesses. (5) Dating men are more powerful than dating women, but there are no gender differences in power in marriage. Hypotheses 1,3, and 5 were supported. Hypotheses 2 and 4 were rejected. Our findings revealed that there were no differences in power or disclosure of accomplishments between men and women for the total group. However, a significant interaction was found between gender and marital status for power. Dating men had more power than dating women, but married women had more power than married men. Last, women disclosed more feelings than men across both groups.     

EXTERNAL REASONS

Abstract: In this article I consider Bernard Williams's argument against the possibility of external reasons for action and his claim that the only reasons for action are therefore internal. Williams's argument appeals to David Hume's claim that reason is the slave of the passions, and to the idea that reasons are capable of motivating the agent who has them. I consider two responses to Williams's argument, by John McDowell and by Stephen Finlay. McDowell claims that even if Hume is right, there might nevertheless be external reasons. Finlay also claims that external reasons exist but, rejecting the connection between reasons and motivation, claims that they don't matter—that is, aren't motivationally significant for the agent whose reasons they are. Although I reject aspects of McDowell's and Finlay's arguments, I argue that external reasons do exist and in particular that any agent has an external reason to satisfy the preconditions of his or her agency.     

TOWARD VERIFYING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF LABORATORY-INDUCED SLIPS OF THE TONGUE: THE OUTPUT-ERROR AND EDITING ISSUES

During the second half of the past decade, psycholinguistic models of speech production have been modified to include a “prearticulatory editing” component, the supposed function of which is to verify the linguistic integrity of impending phoneme strings destined for articulation. Empirical support for psycholinguistic editing comes primarily from studies by the present authors on laboratory-induced verbal slips. All of these studies have depended upon two crucial claims: that laboratory slips are errors of output, and that error-rate differentials are evidence of editing. Recently, however, it has been recognized that neither of these assumptions has been convincingly demonstrated, and consequently the editing models instigated by the earlier studies are being reassessed. The present study tested these two assumptions directly. The output-error assumption was supported by finding larger Galvanic Skin Resistance (GSR) responses for verbal slips than for correct vocalizations. The editing assumption was supported by finding that presumably edited vocal responses (identified by GSR) require more processing time (i.e., vocal response latency) than unedited responses. The reasoning from the empirical observations to conclusions about these assumptions is discussed in detail. Secondarily, a hypothesized social acceptability editing criterion was supported by the observation that neutral verbal slips outnumber taboo counterparts.     

POPULISM AND ELITISM IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

African-American political thought finds its premises in European philosophical traditions. But these traditions often challenge African-American humanity which African-American political thought defends. African-American political thought is therefore an extended commentary on the consistency of European philosophical traditions.     

The Structure of the Ravich Interpersonal Game/Test

Testing technology and research instruments in the study of family process are still generally entrenched in the assumption of the “pathological individual.” One innovative approach to the study of interpersonal process is the use of simulation games. A brief summary of the potential value of simulation for the study of the family and marriage precedes a factor analytic study of the Ravich Interpersonal Game/ Test (RIG/T), a simulation game designed to study dyadic decision-making. Seventy-five married couples seeking marital therapy in private-practice settings compose the study sample. The goal of the study is to investigate the degree to which the RIG/T is representative of the process aspects of marital decision-making, i.e., to assess content validity. Three clear factors account for a major portion of the variance: “Husband's Losing and Withdrawing While Wife Impedes,”“Wife's Losing and Withdrawing as Husband Impedes,” and “Open Conflict and Withdrawal from It.” The pattern of factor intercorrelations suggests that the RIG/T is tapping at least two separate aspects of marital decision-making: the degree to which a person actively impedes the spouse's activity and the extent to which conflict is characteristic of a couple as they negotiate. It is concluded that the RIG/T, as currently constituted, may not be discriminating enough a simulation problem presented to dyads.     

Laboratory training and encounter groups

This article reviews developments and concepts in the small group training field. It provides a brief historical perspective on group training and working definitions for some of the more frequently mentioned types of small groups: the T-group, encounter group, marathon, and therapy group. It also comments on research dealing with both the effects of group training and professional-ethical issues.