Multiple factors of cognitive failure and their relationships with stress vulnerability

Use of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) in clinical research assumes that the questionnaire measures a single factor. A factor analysis of the CFQ was performed, on a sample of 475 students, using accurate procedures for determining the number of factors. These procedures gave mutually inconsistent results: at least two alternative factor structures can be extracted from the CFQ. An interpretable seven factor solution was found, but the CFQ probably has insufficient items to measure more than two strongly defined factors. The capacity of CFQ multiple factors to predict measures related to stress vulnerability was tested in a further study (N=57). Correlations between CFQ total score and neuroticism and use of coping strategies appeared to depend mainly on a single CFQ multiple factor, related to failures of concentration. Some of the other CFQ factors predicted other criteria. Further research on multiple factors of cognitive failure might improve the validity of the CFQ as a predictor of stress vulnerability and of cognitive performance.     

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RECIDIVISTS AND CONTRACEPTORS ALONG THE DIMENSIONS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL AND IMPULSIVITY

The research examined personality differences between repeat aborters, initial aborters, and nulliparas. A review of the literature in the area has documented the demographic characteristics of women who continually seek repeated abortion. This study was an attempt to differentiate between women who contracept from those who seek abortion repeatedly on the basis of personality differences. The findings indicate that repeaters who seek abortion at the time of personality testing perceive themselves low in impulsivity, a finding similar to that for women who have never been pregnant and are seeking contraceptive services. Results are examined from the perspective of inaccurate vs accurate self-perceptions. No differences were found with respect to locus of control.     

Toward a value diffusion theory of depression

Unlike psychoanalytic theory, which claims that loss of a valued relationship, role, or goal trigers a trauma of infancy or childhood involving separation from the mother, value diffusion theory describes the relationship between loss and depression differently: First, loss precipitates a destabilization of values (specifically, “continuity” and “discontinuity” values) that form a part of the character of an individual; second, if the destabilization persists and is of sufficient severity, value diffusion, a state in which the individual actually experiences a loss of identity or self, occurs, which often produces a state of depression. The author draws attention to a direct relationship between concepts underlying a value diffusion theory and psychoanalytic theory of depression. Psychoanalytic theorists have noted the special significance of two kinds of loss producing depression: (1) a loss of relationships, and (2) a loss of achievements. In value diffusion theory, the first of these corresponds to one of a set of values to which the author has given the name “continuity” values in prior publications, and the second to one of a set of values given the name “discontinuity”. A case study is presented of an elderly depressed woman to illustrate certain aspects of value diffusion theory, and to contrast it with psychoanalytic and learned helplessness theory as causal explanations of depression.     

The Vocational Exploration Group and minority youth: An experimental outcome study

This study was designed to investigate experimentally the effectiveness of the Vocational Exploration Group in assisting students to become more aware of the world of work and its relevance for them. Sixty male, Mexican-American, junior high students were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Vocational Exploration Group, (2) VEG without interaction, or (3) Control. Upon completion of treatments subjects were post-tested with an instrument designed to assess knowledge of factors such as differing functions of jobs, interests and skills needed in different jobs and satisfactions available from work. Analyses revealed no statistically significant differences (a = .05) among groups.