The Relation of Weight Stigmatization to Psychological Adjustment1

This study investigated weight stigmatization as a predictor of adjustment in samples of 100 undergraduates and 99 bariatric patients. Coping strategies (emotion‐focused coping, problem‐focused coping, disengagement coping) were tested as moderators of this relation. Weight stigmatization predicted depression, anxiety, and antisocial behavior when controlling for the effects of stressful life events. Problem‐focused coping weakened the association between weight stigmatization and depression. Emotion‐focused coping augmented the relation between weight stigmatization and antisocial behavior. The results support weight stigmatization as a meaningful predictor of adjustment difficulties. Engendering a problem‐focused coping style over an emotion‐focused coping style might benefit patients reporting weight stigmatization. Further work is necessary to understand what specific elements of these coping styles impact adjustment.     

When Benevolence Backfires: Benevolent Sexists' Opposition to Elective and Traumatic Abortion1

Though gender‐role attitudes correlate with attitudes toward abortion ( Wang, 2004 ), past research has treated gender‐role attitudes as a unidimensional construct. The theory of ambivalent sexism ( Glick & Fiske, 1996 ) holds that attitudes toward women form 2 distinct ideologies; namely, benevolent and hostile sexism. The current study examined the relationship between these ideologies and attitudes toward elective and traumatic abortion in a sample of Internet users (N = 529). As expected, both benevolent and hostile sexism predicted attitudes toward elective abortion, but only benevolent sexism predicted attitudes toward traumatic abortion. These results remained robust after controlling for important demographic factors. Such findings highlight the importance of differentiating between hostile and benevolent sexism when predicting attitudes toward complex issues.     

Properties,Powers, and the Subset Account of Realization

According to the subset account of realization, a property, F, is realized by another property, G, whenever F is individuated by a non‐empty proper subset of the causal powers by which G is individuated (and F is not a conjunctive property of which G is a conjunct). This account is especially attractive because it seems both to explain the way in which realized properties are nothing over and above their realizers, and to provide for the causal efficacy of realized properties. It therefore seems to provide a way around the causal exclusion problem. There is reason to doubt, however, that the subset account can achieve both tasks. The problem arises when we look closely at the relation between properties and causal powers, specifically, at the idea that properties confer powers on the things that have them. If realizers are to be ontically prior to what they realize, then we must regard the conferral of powers by properties as a substantive relation of determination. This relation of conferral is at the heart of a kind of exclusion problem, analogous to the familiar causal exclusion problem. I argue that the subset account cannot adequately answer this new exclusion problem, and is for that reason ill‐suited to be the backbone of a non‐reductive physicalism.     

COHERENCE: THE PRICE IS RIGHT

This article is a response to Elijah Millgram's argument that my characterization of coherence as constraint satisfaction is inadequate for philosophical purposes because it provides no guarantee that the most coherent theory available will be true. I argue that the constraint satisfaction account of coherence satisfies the philosophical, computational, and psychological prerequisites for the development of epistemological and ethical theories.     

Psychometric properties of the revised Norwegian dispositional resilience (hardiness) scale

Hystad, S. W., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C. & Bartone, P. T. (2010) Psychometric properties of the revised Norwegian dispositional resilience (hardiness) scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 237–245. In the 30 years that have elapsed since it was first introduced, the concept of hardiness has continued to attract the attention and interest of researchers from all over the world. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and factor structure of a revised Norwegian hardiness scale (Dispositional Resilience Scale 15; DRS‐15). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic strategies with a large sample of working adults (N = 7,280), support was found for a hierarchical structure comprising a general hardiness dimension and three sub‐dimensions (commitment, control, and challenge). Overall, the results support the reliability and validity of the revised DRS‐15 and underscore the importance of examining the psychometric properties and cultural appropriateness of translated scales.