Temporal memory over the adult lifespan

Performances of noncollege student young adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly adults were contrasted on word temporal memory and paired-associate learning tasks. A comparison group of college-student subjects was also evaluated on each task. Significant effects for age variation were found for each task. The age sensitivity for temporal memory conflicts with one of the criteria commonly established for determining the automaticity of a memory task. In addition, moderately high positive correlations were found for each age group between word temporal memory scores and paired-associate learning scores, implying the involvement of effortful processes over the adult lifespan in word temporal memory.     

Drinking practices among black and white alcoholics and alcoholics of different personality types

In order to examine the effects that race and personality type have on self-reported drinking practices, samples of 49 White and 49 Black male alcoholics were matched on age and education, and classified into two personality types according to MMPI scores. The results of multivariate and univariate analyses of variance yielded significant main effects. White alcoholics reported a greater: (a) use of alcohol for symptomatic relief of psychological distress, (b) loss of motor control and tendency to engage in destructive acts, and (c) daily consumption of beverage alcohol than Black alcoholics. Alcoholics with psychiatric-appearing MMPI profiles reported greater: (a) social benefits of alcohol use, (b) alcohol use for symptomatic relief of psychological distress, and (c) perceptual distortions associated with alcohol withdrawal than alcoholics with characterlogical-appearing MMPIs. Results were discussed in terms of need to control confounding effects of biosocial variables in cross-cultural research and implications that these effects may have on the generalizability of alcoholic personality typologies.     

A comparison of two measures of egocentrism

This study examined the relationship between two prominent measures of egocentrism, Enright's Adolescent Egocentrism Scale (AES) and Elkind's Imaginary Audience Scale (IAS), in a sample of 458 adolescents, between 10 and 15 years old. Both correlational and factor analyses indicated that the two measures assess distinctly different phenomena. As predicted, IAS scores were correlated with self-reported levels of shyness, nervousness, and social skills. These results provide partial evidence for the validity of the IAS as a measure of self-consciousness, though not necessarily egocentrism per se. The validity of the AES was not examined.     

Remembering Your Parents: Reflections on the Retrospective Method

In the present paper, I critique the use of the retrospective method when it is used as a proxy for actual longitudinal data on personality development. Studies on the constructive nature of memory cast strong doubts about the meaning of retrospective data. There are good reasons, both theoretical and empirical, to distrust the accuracy of such recall concerning parenting, whether recalled by parents, children, or siblings. Instead of using the method as a shortcut to developmental data, studies examining individual differences in accuracy and distortion and the factors that moderate them may inform us of the various meanings of retrospective data.     

The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.