Predictors of motivation to comply with social referents regarding one's romantic relationship

This research examined predictors of motivation to comply with social referents regarding one's romantic relationship. Two variables are argued to predict motivation to comply with the opinions of social network members: (a) social consequences of compliance and (b) perceived relationship expertise. Three studies examined the association of these variables with motivation to comply. Study 1 used survey research to demonstrate that these variables predict motivation to comply. Studies 2 and 3 experimentally manipulated social consequences of compliance and perceived relationship expertise, respectively, providing evidence of a causal connection between these variables and motivation to comply. Across three studies, the results support the role of social consequences of compliance and perceived relationship expertise in understanding social influences on romantic decision making.     

Reincarnation and the Akashic Field: A Dialogue with Ervin Laszlo

This article argues that Laszlo's concept of the Akashic Field (A-field) does not render the concept of reincarnation either redundant or unnecessary, that reincarnation is a fact of nature, something the universe is doing at this stage of its evolution. Not only is Laszlo's theory compatible with the concept of rebirth, it actually strengthens that theory by clarifying some of the processes involved. This article presents a rationale for the belief that through reincarnation the universe is giving birth to a transpersonal individuality that does endure outside space–time and is not dissolved back into the quantum vacuum.     

Perceiving low self‐esteem in close others impedes capitalization and undermines the relationship

Disclosing positive experiences to others (i.e., “capitalization”) is associated with personal and interpersonal benefits (Gable & Reis, 2010). Unfortunately, people who perceive low self‐esteem (LSE) in close others are reluctant to capitalize, holding back from those they expect will be unsupportive (MacGregor & Holmes, 2011). In Study 1, we extend previous findings by demonstrating the importance of the type of experience disclosed; participants capitalized less positively with an (ostensibly) LSE friend when disclosing an accomplishment, not a positive experience attributed to happenstance. In Study 2, we demonstrate the external validity of the phenomenon by examining real discussions between romantic partners. Participants capitalized less positively with their LSE partner, behavior associated with lower relationship satisfaction 6 weeks later (particularly for women).     

The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level,satisfaction level,quality of alternatives,and investment size

Three studies evaluated the reliability and validity of the Investment Model Scale, an instrument designed to measure four constructs, including commitment level and three bases of dependence–satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. In all three studies, reliability analyses revealed good internal consistency among items designed to measure each construct. Also, principal components analyses performed on scale items revealed evidence of four factors, with items designed to measure each construct loading on independent factors. Studies 2 and 3 examined associations of model variables with instruments measuring diverse qualities of relationships and assorted personal dispositions. As anticipated, Investment Model variables were moderately associated with other measures reflecting superior couple functioning (e.g., dyadic adjustment, trust level, inclusion of other in the self), and were essentially unrelated to measures assessing personal dispositions (e.g., need for cognition, self-esteem). In addition, Study 3 demonstrated that earlier measures of Investment Model variables predicted later levels of dyadic adjustment and later relationship status (persisted vs. ended). It is hoped that the existence of a reliable and valid Investment Model Scale will promote further research regarding commitment and interdependence in ongoing close relationships.     

BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS? THE MOST “CENTRAL” MEMBERS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY ASSOCIATIONS CA. 1900

There are many different ways to assess the significance of historical figures. Often we look at the influence of their writings, or at the important offices they held with disciplinary institutions such as universities, journals, and scholarly societies. In this study, however, we took a novel approach: we took the complete memberships, ca. 1900, of four organizations—the American Psychological Association, the Western Philosophical Association, the American Philosophical Association, and the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology—and visualized them as a network. We then identified individuals who “bridged” between two or more of these groups and considered what might be termed their “centrality” to the psychological‐philosophical community of their time. First, we examined these figures qualitatively, briefly describing their lives and careers. Then we approached the problem mathematically, considering several alternative technical realizations of “centrality” and then explaining our reasons for choosing eigenvector centrality as the best for our purposes. We found a great deal of overlap among the results of the qualitative and quantitative approaches, but also some telling differences. J. Mark Baldwin, Edward Buchner, Christine Ladd Franklin, and Frank Thilly consistently emerged as highly central figures. Some more marginal figures such as Max Meyer, and Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, Edward A. Pace, Edward H. Griffin played interesting roles as well.     

Maladjustment implications of self and group gender–role discrepancies: An ordered-discrepancy model

Deviation from personal ideals and group standards has maladaptive consequences. Using insights from self-categorization and social identity theories, an ordered-discrepancy model of maladjustment was proposed in which simultaneously deviating from both types of standards is associated with increased maladjustment for members of high status groups, except when such dual discrepancies imply that one is closer to one's ideals than is one's group. In the latter case, decreased maladjustment can be expected. For members of low status groups, discrepancies from ideals, but not from one's group, were expected to predict maladjustment. Patterns of deviations on dimensions of masculinity and femininity predicted maladjustment among men, a high status group, and women, a low status group, as hypothesized. Implications for social identity and self-categorization theories, and for gender–role research, are discussed. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE WITH THE INDCOL MEASURE OF INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR VALID CROSS-CULTURAL INFERENCE

The INDCOL measure of individualism and collectivism ( Singelis et al., 1995 ) has been used increasingly to test complex cross-cultural hypotheses. However, sample differences in translation, culture, organization, and response context might threaten the validity of cross-cultural inferences. We systematically explored the robustness of the INDCOL, for various statistical uses, in the face of those 4 threats. An analysis of measurement equivalence using multigroup mean and covariance structure analysis compared samples of INDCOL data from the United States, Singapore, and Korea. The INDCOL was robust with regard to the interpretability of correlations, whereas differences in culture and translation pose an important potential threat to the interpretability of mean-level analyses. Recommendations regarding the interpretation of the INDCOL and issues in the analysis of measurement equivalence in cross-cultural research are discussed.