Sex differences in environmental concern and knowledge: The case of acid rain

Several theories have been presented that predict differences between women and men in attitudes toward the environment due to differences in sex roles. Research on which these theories can be tested has tended to examine general environmental concern, and the results have generally been weak and inconclusive. Using an approach suggested in the literature, this study examines sex differences in concern and knowledge, using multi-item scales for each, about one environmental issue — acid rain. The results contradict the theories being tested, however: if there is a sex difference, men are found to be more concerned and knowledgeable about the environmental problem.     

Discovering what it all means

This article deals with appropriate communication and interpersonal skills that nurses may use in order to support patients who are experiencing self-concept changes related to their health problems. Three areas of patient need related to self-concept are explored. The stages of adaptation to loss and the crucial task of grief work are reviewed, and nursing interventions designed to strengthen the self-concept and support patients as they adapt to loss are suggested. Sensitive communication, although a low-visibility nursing skill, is cited as critical in assisting the patient to achieve an optimum level of wellness.     

Spiritual issues in mental health care

Religious and spiritual issues in mental health are explored in the context of four conceptual models: the medical, the nursing, the humanistic, and the pastoral. This is done by looking at each model in terms of content, diagnostic focus, language and treatment goals, and primary qualities in the health provider.The models are illustrated by case studies gathered from a multidisciplinary setting. The discovery that each model can incorporate the religious and spiritual dimension in mental health care, but that each model does this in distinctive ways, is a key point.     

Computer-generated psychological reports: a look at the modern psychometric machine

The proliferation of computer-generated psychological reports prompts an examination of the presuppositions of such reports and what they offer in the way of understanding individual clients. This topic is approached primarily through a review of some basics of psychological testing and psychological assessment. Major differences are noted between these two approaches to evaluating clients: They are different processes, and they yield different products. Assessment is a complex set of activities that seeks solutions to specific problems, whereas testing fits a straightforward actuarial paradigm. Testing is readily adapted to an automated data processing system, whereas the complex of assessment procedures cannot be so managed. Serious questions about the validity of computer reports are raised, however, and ethical concerns are expressed over the use of these reports by persons without adequate psychological training to understand them correctly. Limited uses for computer reports are suggested along with the need for further studies of validity and ethics.     

Measuring gender differences: The expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales

This paper calls for a new approach to the measurement of gender similarities and differences in personality. Critiques of current measures that are based on the measurement of stereotypical masculinity and femininity are reviewed, and an alternative measure is presented. It avoids many of the problems in the other scales by measuring expressiveness and instrumentality in such a way that they are not confounded with variables such as independence or autonomy. Results with this measure in five different samples are presented. These confirm our theoretical definitions of expressiveness and instrumentality, and suggest that only the expressive or relational dimension consistently differentiates samples of women and men.We thank Mary Rothbart for her insightful and constructive comments on an earlier draft; Leisha Sanders, Marcia DeCaro, Vickie Van Nortwick, and Lyn Cogswell for their clerical assistance; the Center for the Study of Women in Society for financial support; and Liza Kuecker and Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs for providing data used in the analysis. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1984 annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association.