Development and validation of a Coping with Discrimination Scale: factor structure, reliability, and validity

Four studies were conducted to develop and validate the Coping With Discrimination Scale (CDS). In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis (N = 328) identified 5 factors: Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, Resistance, and Detachment, with internal consistency reliability estimates ranging from .72 to .90. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (N = 328) provided cross-validation of the 5-factor model as well as evidence for validity of the scale. The validity evidence was similar across racial groups and for males and females. In Study 3, the estimated 2-week test-retest reliabilities (N = 53) were between .48 and .85 for the 5 factors. Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Detachment were positively associated with active coping, self-blame, substance use, and behavioral disengagement, respectively, providing further support for validity of the CDS. Finally, incremental validity evidence was obtained in Study 4 (N = 220), where it was shown that the CDS explained variance in outcome variables (i.e., depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and ethnic identity) that could not be explained by general coping strategies.     

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT OF ELOPEMENT ACROSS TWO SCHOOL SETTINGS

The elopement of a child with Asperger syndrome was assessed using functional analyses and was treated in two school settings (classroom and resource room). Functional analyses indicated that elopement was maintained by access to attention in the resource room and obtaining a preferred activity in the classroom. Attention- and tangible-based interventions were compared in an alternating treatments design in both settings. Results validated the findings of the functional analyses. Implications for the assessment and treatment of elopement are discussed.     

Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT?

In the current set of experiments, we establish, and explore the consequences of, the imprecision that characterizes the attribute response labels typically employed in the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, we demonstrate the malleability of the IAT, as conventionally implemented. IAT scores are shown to be influenced by perspective mindsets induced by an unrelated preceding task. Then, we explore how the malleability of the IAT can lead to the inference that attitude change has occurred even when there is very good reason to believe it has not (Experiment 2), and conversely, how it can obscure the detection of attitude change when such change is indeed likely to have occurred (Experiment 3). We provide conceptual explanations for these discrepancies and suggest methodological improvements to enhance the specificity of IAT measures.     

Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship

Although group identification and group efficacy are both important predictors of collective action against collective disadvantage, there is mixed evidence for their (causal) relationship. Meta-analytic and correlational evidence suggests an overall positive relationship that has been interpreted as consistent with the idea that group identification leads to group efficacy. However, experimental evidence has not supported this causal relationship. To resolve this paradox, we show in an experiment that it is group efficacy that leads to increased group identification because group efficacy puts individuals' identity into action. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.     

Stained Hands: Commentary on Paper by Gillian Straker

I attempt, in this discussion, to deconstruct the jouissance present in the witnessing of a deliberate annihilation of a human being. I propose that the crisis in the analyst's subjectivity is linked to an unconscious identification with that which is most abhorrent and unacceptable. The unknowability of trauma ensures that its presence will be enacted in a complex system of mutual influence between analyst and patient in which the roles of victim, perpetrator and bystander oscillate between and within the participants. Taking the discussion to the broader sociopolitical level, I make an analogy between the destructiveness of the South African regime under apartheid and the current destructiveness of the U.S. engaging in a pre-emptive war. In a similar way to how Straker may feel contaminated by her patient's complicity in annihilation, so too are we contaminated by the atrocities perpetuated in the name of our country, even if they are policies we condemn.