Coping strategies used by middle-aged males with noise-induced hearing loss,with and without tinnitus

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between general coping strategies and specific communication strategies, adopted by males with noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in order to deal with stressful events and demanding auditory situations. The sample included 72 males with NIHL; 22 without tinnitus, 26 with mild tinnitus, and 24 with severe tinnitus. The following variables were measured: “active coping” “escape coping” and “passive acceptance” (general coping strategies), and “maladaptive behaviours”, “verbal strategies” and “nonverbal strategies” (specific communication strategies). The results showed that males without tinnitus or with mild tinnitus combined “active coping” and “passive acceptance”, whereas males with severe tinnitus supplemented these strategies with “escape coping”. The relationship between general coping and specific communication strategies was weak, although giving a significant correlation between “escape coping” and “maladaptive behaviours”. The results indicate that the hypothesis that a person's general pattern of coping has influence on his/her ability to cope effectively with a hearing impairment can not be supported. Further research should concentrate on the contribution of personality factors as well as environmental factors to the variance in coping with NIHL and tinnitus.     

A closer look at the discrimination outcomes in the IAT literature

To what extent the IAT (Implicit Association Test, Greenwald et al., 1998) predicts racial and ethnic discrimination is a heavily debated issue. The latest meta‐analysis by Oswald et al. (2013) suggests a very weak association. In the present meta‐analysis, we switched the focus from the predictor to the criterion, by taking a closer look at the discrimination outcomes. We discovered that many of these outcomes were not actually operationalizations of discrimination, but rather of other related, but distinct, concepts, such as brain activity and voting preferences. When we meta‐analyzed the main effects of discrimination among the remaining discrimination outcomes, the overall effect was close to zero and highly inconsistent across studies. Taken together, it is doubtful whether the amalgamation of these outcomes is relevant criteria for assessing the IAT's predictive validity of discrimination. Accordingly, there is also little evidence that the IAT can meaningfully predict discrimination, and we thus strongly caution against any practical applications of the IAT that rest on this assumption. However, provided that the application is thoroughly informed by the current state of the literature, we believe the IAT can still be a useful tool for researchers, educators, managers, and students who are interested in attitudes, prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination.