Reported Speech in Talking Race on Campus

In talking race, university students sometimes report the speech of others, or themselves, to recreate what happened during an incident. Reported speech is used within narratives to vividly convey what was said, purportedly through the actor's own words or as evidence to support general claims. The speaker is not merely reporting speech but also assessing the problematic character of the actions performed through others’words. Reported speech is relevantly tied to assessment. Assessment reveals the reporting speaker's positioning toward the reported speech. The reported speech used in talking race presents the other as ignorant, biased, racist, ridiculous, or honest. African Americans discursively portray Whites as unwilling to admit racism, as stereotyping, or as duplicitous in intergroup relations. Whites, on the other hand, frame African Americans as exaggerating racism or as overemphasizing their ethnicity. Representing others’actions through invoking their words is a way of criticizing, challenging, or resisting such troublesome racialized events.     

The Effect of Tomm's Therapeutic Questioning Styles on Therapeutic Alliance: A Clinical Analog Study

10 suggests that circular and reflexive questions tend to elicit feelings of freedom/acceptance whereas lineal and strategic questions usually trigger feelings of judgment/constraint. Employing an analog methodology, each of Tomm's four questioning styles was portrayed in the form of a 5-minute videotaped intake scenario. Forty family triads with a mother, father, and adolescent son were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions with ten families each. Each condition involved viewing one of four questioning style scenarios. All participants (N = 120 individuals — 40 mothers, 40 fathers, and 40 adolescent sons) completed the Family Therapy Alliance Scale (FTAS; 9 ) and a validity-check instrument. The results indicated that circular and reflexive questioning styles elicited significantly higher (p < .001 ) alliance scores on the FTAS than did either lineal or strategic questions. Implications for the use of different types of questions in family therapy are discussed.     

Welfare Isn't Working

Welfare and work appear to be two opposing entities. The purpose of this article is to share with the reader what happens when a job service office and a county social service department join forces. Although disillusioned with prevailing attitudes regarding welfare recipients, the two WIN counselors present to the reader possible avenues for change.     

Preventing drug abuse: where are we now?

Counselors in many settings are involved in the development and implementation of drug abuse prevention programs. It is therefore essential that counselors be as informed as possible about the characteristics of drug abusers and about the drug abuse prevention programs that seem to hold some promise of being effective. This article provides some of this information by examining the research literature and extracting from it the common themes that have meaning for counselors in almost any population.     

AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL IN EVALUATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

Children made a series of evaluative judgements of 20 nonsense words, which they were told to imagine were people's names. Each subject judged half the names in terms of two-category rating scales containing an affirmative (A) response category which was evaluatively positive (E +) and a negative (n) category which was evaluatively negative (E -), e.g. ‘happy-not happy’, the other half were judged in terms of scales where the A category was E -, and the N category E +, e.g. ‘rude - not rude’. The main finding was a highly significant tendency for subjects to give more A than N responses, irrespective of evaluative content: in addition, a tendency for subjects to give more E - than E + responses, irrespective of grammatical form, approached significance.     

PROGRESS IN PSYCHOMETRICS: CAN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CATCH UP?

Murphy and DeShon (2000) show that interrater correlations do not provide reasonable estimates of the reliability of job performance ratings, and suggest that better estimates can be obtained by applying the methods of generalizability theory. Schmidt, Viswesvaran, and Ones (2000) criticize our suggestions as radical, and argue that: (a) the reliability of ratings should be evaluated using the parallel test model rather than the more general and more realistic generalizability model, (b) reliability and validity are distinct concepts that should not be confused, and (c) measurement models have little to do with substantive models of the processes that generate scores on a test or measure. All three of these ideas were once part of the psychometric mainstream, but progress in psychometrics over the last 3 decades has moved the field well beyond these assumptions and approaches. Modern psychometric theory calls for close linkages between measurement models and substantive models of the phenomena being measured.