EVALUATING MEASURES OF CONTEMPORARY SEXISM

Two recently published measures of contemporary sexist attitudes were examined and compared with a sample of 106 Canadian college students. Swim, Aikin, Hall, and Hunter's (1995) Modern Sexism scale was found to be an acceptable measure of sexist attitudes in terms of its internal reliability and its ability to predict other gender-related political attitudes. Although the Modern Sexism scale and the Neosexism scale (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995) were equally good at predicting support for the feminist movement and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, the Neosexism scale had better internal reliability and exhibited stronger gender differences. Moreover, the Neosexism scale was superior at predicting value orientations relevant to modern prejudices.     

Social problem-solving in depressed,conduct-disordered,and normal adolescents

Although past theory and research implicate social problem-solving deficits in both depression and aggressive disorders, research examining carefully diagnosed groups of adolescent depressed and conduct-disordered groups had not previously been conducted. In the current study three groups of adolescents (major depression, conduct-disordered, and normal) were studied using two social problem-solving measures. Both the Means-Ends Problem-Solving task (MEPS) and the Social Situations Analysis measure (SSA) failed to show social problem-solving problem deficits in the depressed group relative to their normal age peers, but did provide corroborative evidence for social problem-solving deficits in the conduct-disordered sample. Relative to the other two groups, the conduct-disordered adolescents were found to generate fewer means to a social end, to anticipate fewer obstacles in the pursuit of solutions to interpersonal situations, and to generate fewer assertive behavioral solutions to difficult social situations. The results are discussed in relation to other work with depressed and aggressive youth, and directions for future research are given.     

Facing up to the issues: Reply to Hellige (1983)

In a recent article in this journal, Hellige (Brain and Cognition, 2, 199-203, 1983) presented a critique of the chimeric-face technique that was used by us to validate a hand preference questionnaire. Data were presented by Hellige to show that the left visual field (LVF) bias that occurs on this task is due primarily to differences in detail in the features of the two faces and not because of right hemisphere dominance for face perception. In our rebuttal, we acknowledge that the two faces are not mirror-image duplicates of each other, but contend that this fact does not explain why differences between left-handers and right-handers have been observed on this task. Further data on the role of handedness as well as other variables impacting on this task are presented. A possible explanation is also offered for the rather small extent of LVF bias that Hellige obtained when he used corrected (i.e., true mirror-image) versions of Jaynes' chimeric faces.     

Adverse effects of differential parental attention

In two independent parent training projects (Kansas and Mississippi), mothers of deviant young children were observed to follow almost all child behaviors with attention. The mothers were then trained to use differential attention procedures to increase their child's appropriate behaviors and to decrease deviant behaviors. Contrary to expectations, the differential attention procedure produced substantial increases in deviant behavior for four of the children. This adverse effect was maintained over many sessions and was replicated in single organism, reversal designs. A fifth child showed no change. A sixth child showed some improvement. However, this effect was not recovered in a second application of differential attention, and the child became worse. The results underline the importance of subject generality in applied behavior analysis and strongly suggest that service programs using operant techniques must carefully evaluate their effects on behavior.     

Shape constancy and a perceptual bias towards symmetry

In attempting to judge whether a briefly presented rotated figure was symmetrical (circle or square) or asymmetrical (ellipse or rectangle), a bias towards perceiving symmetry was evident. This bias appears to be perceptual rather than judgmental in origin in that it was affected neither by variations in the probability of occurrence of symmetrical figures nor by familiarization with the stimuli. A characterization of the stimulus similarity space based on the shape-slant invariance hypothesis is presented, and a model which incorporates both the similarity space and the symmetry bias is proposed. The model can account for our paradoxical finding that the more asymmetrical some projected images, the more likely they will be perceived as symmetrical. This model can also account for Massaro’s (1973, 1975) results on shape constancy. However, Massaro’s theory was not supported in that extension in depth did not account for increased difficulty of shape judgments.     

Should assessment center dimension ratings be mechanically-derived?

This study examined the relationship between consensusderived and mechanically-derived assessment center ratings using a sample of 110 police candidates. It was determined that the two sets of dimension ratings were highly correlated (medianr=.83). Further, the mechanically-derived and the consensus-derived assessment ratings both correlated with the overall assessment ratings (OAR) at .71. It was estimated that the organization in this study could save $6137.92 a year, and $36.89 per assessee by eliminating the team meeting (consensus decision-making).     

From dispositions to behaviors: The flip side of attribution

The implicational relations between dispositional levels and relevant categories of behavior were investigated. Observers were asked questions about the extent to which persons occupying moderate or extreme positions on an attribute (dispositional) continuum (a) attempt various behaviors, (b) are potentially able to perform various behaviors, and (c) generally emit those same behaviors. Three determinants—central tendency, ability, and social desirabliity—offer a reasonable account of the observed implicational relations. First, persons with a given disposition are not expected to emit behavior that is widely discrepant with that disposition. Second, ability considerations dictate that persons with skillful dispositions are believed capable of unskillful behavior, but unskillful persons are thought relatively incapable of skillful behavior. Third, persons are believed to more frequently attempt socially desirable than socially undesirable behavior. Also, persons with moderate dispositions are believed to actually emit socially desirable behavior more frequently than socially undesirable behavior. Finally, the determinants noted above may be of differing relevance for morality, ability, and preference attributes.