Examining predictors and outcomes of a career calling among undergraduate students

The current study examined predictors and outcomes of a career calling among 292 undergraduate students at two time points over a three-month period. Using structural equation modeling, a model was tested that examined the extent to which calling, life meaning, the search for life meaning, vocational clarity, and personal growth at Time 1 would predict these same variables at Time 2. Results showed that calling was a significant predictor of personal growth and life meaning and that life meaning, the search for life meaning, and vocational self-clarity significantly predicted the presence of a calling. Although findings demonstrating calling as a predictor variable are consistent with previous research, these results also demonstrate the potential reciprocal relation of calling to proximal work and well-being variables over time. Implications and future research directions are discussed.     

Intrinsic Religiousness as a Mediator Between Fatalism and Cancer-Specific Fear: Clarifying the Role of Fear in Prostate Cancer Screening

Understanding factors that influence screening receptivity may enhance African-American men’s receptivity to prostate cancer screening. Men of African descent (N = 481) between the ages of 40 and 70 were recruited. The hypotheses that Fatalism would be related to Intrinsic Religiousness and Fear, Intrinsic Religiousness would act as a mediator between Fatalism and Fear, and Fatalism as well as Prostate Cancer-Specific Fear would be negatively related to past Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Screening Intent were supported. This meditational finding suggests that when religious beliefs are a motivating force, the fear-inducing effects of fatalism are reduced.     

Examining Moderators of Signature Strengths Use and Well-being: Calling and Signature Strengths Level

This study examined the relation between signature strengths use and satisfaction with a sample of diverse undergraduate students. We measured strengths use and satisfaction in both the life and academic domains and identified two possible moderators of this relation: the level of one’s signature strengths and the presence of calling. Results revealed a three way interaction between signature strengths use, signature strengths level, and calling in the prediction of life satisfaction and a two way interaction between signature strengths use and calling in the prediction of academic satisfaction. Contrary to our hypotheses, people low in calling and high in signature strengths level showed the strongest relation between signature strengths use and life satisfaction. For the academic domain, participants low in calling showed the strongest relation between strengths use and academic satisfaction but those high in calling still benefited from using their strengths. Implications for future research and limitations of the study are discussed.     

Ethics in Psychology and Law: An International Perspective

Some psychologists working in the psychology and law (psycholegal) field feel that the profession does not provide them with adequate ethical guidance even though the field is arguably one of the oldest and best established applied fields of psychology. The uncertainty psychologists experience most likely stems from working with colleagues whose professional ethics differs from their own while providing services to demanding people and the many moral questions associated with the administration of law. I believe psychology’s ethics does, however, provide adequate moral guidance. It has a sound historical basis, has face validity and emphasizes those social moral principles that allow psychologists to best serve individuals and society. Psychologists may nevertheless be confronted with conflicting demands because there are other norm systems that also regulate their behavior as researchers and practitioners, and they, like all people, are influenced by their conscience. Ultimately, psychologists working in the psycholegal field will be best served if they have good knowledge of, and have internalized, the ethical principles of psychology.     

Multi‐Peer Disagreement and the Preface Paradox

The problem of multi‐peer disagreement concerns the reasonable response to a situation in which you believe P₁ … P_n and disagree with a group of ‘epistemic peers’ of yours, who believe ～P₁ … ～P_n, respectively. However, the problem of multi‐peer disagreement is a variant on the preface paradox; because of this the problem poses no challenge to the so‐called ‘steadfast view’ in the epistemology of disagreement, on which it is sometimes reasonable to believe P in the face of peer disagreement about P. After some terminology is defined (§1), Peter van Inwagen's challenge to the steadfast view will be presented (§2). The preface paradox will then be presented and diagnosed (§3), and it will be argued that van Inwagen's challenge relies on the same principle that generates the preface paradox (§4). The reasonable response to multi‐peer disagreement will be discussed (§5), and an objection addressed (§6).     

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Coaches’ Observed Emotion-Behavior Profiles and Adolescent Athletes’ Self-Reported Developmental Outcomes

This investigation explored the relationship between coaches’ emotions and adolescent athletes’ psychosocial development. Participants were 9 male soccer coaches and their female athletes (N = 134, M_age = 14.54). Systematic observation was used to assess coaches’ emotions during practice and athletes completed questionnaires evaluating developmental outcomes. Cluster analyses revealed 2 groups: “calm, inquisitive coaches” (n = 6) and “intense, hustle coaches” (n = 3). Athletes of calm, inquisitive coaches reported significantly more prosocial behaviors and less antisocial behaviors directed toward opponents than athletes of intense, hustle coaches. Thus, coaches’ emotions during practice may be associated with young athletes’ moral behaviors.