A psychometric study of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES), a measure of family functioning, contains three scales: cohesion, adaptability, and social desirability. These were slightly modified (FACES- R) on the basis of pilot data and were administered to 42 clinic families (families seeking or receiving psychological services) and 206 nonclinic families. Support for the scales was found in high coefficient alpha reliabilities and similarity of the sample means and standard deviations to those of the standardization sample. However, there was little agreement among family members' scale scores. Therapists' ratings of cohesion and adaptability did not correlate with scale scores among clinic families. There was no difference between clinic and nonclinic samples on the cohesion or adaptability scales, although the social desirability scale did discriminate between groups. Factor analysis suggested that cohesion, adaptability, and social desirability cannot be clearly differentiated using this measure.This work was supported by the American Association of University Women and by Grant R01HD13820 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.     

Causal attribution and dispositional inference: Evidence of inconsistent judgments

Two experiments examined whether individuals who ascribe the disparity in the performances of two actors to situational constraints adequately adjust their dispositional inferences to reflect their own perceptions of causality. Using the quiz-game format of L. D. Ross, T. M. Amabile, and J. L. Steinmetz (1977, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494), the effects of the subjects' awareness of the role-determined, self-presentation advantage of the questioner on their dispositional inferences concerning the quiz-game participants are noted. It is hypothesized that subjects who indicated full awareness of the determining force of the situation would nevertheless draw more favorable dispositional inferences about the questioner than about the contestant. The prediction is confirmed. Although the situationally aware subjects rate the questioner and contestant more similarly than do the other subjects, they still rate the questioner higher in knowledge, memory, and education. The results of Experiment 2 indicate that increasing the salience of the subjects' assessment of the situational advantage of the questioner does not eliminate the disparity. It is proposed that the fudamental attribution error represents more a failure to adjust trait inferences for causal attributions than a misperception of causality. Implications concerning the relationship between knowledge of causality and social judgment and the utility of the distinction between “perceived causality” and “higher order causal inferences” are discussed.     

Comparing the Effects of Monetary Incentives and Foot-in-the-Door Strategies in Promoting Residential Electricity Conservation

The relative effectiveness of incentive and minimal justification techniques in promoting electrical energy conservation among 90 homeowners was investigated. Subjects in the Questionnaire condition were asked to complete a short energy conservation survey. Those in the Commitment condition were asked to curtail their consumption of electricity by 15%. In the Questionnaire + Commitment condition, subjects received both requests. These three groups were compared to an Incentive condition, where individuals were offered a highly attractive monetary incentive for conserving electricity, a Questionnaire + Commitment + Incentive condition, and a Control condition. The groups did not differ in electricity consumption during baseline, initial request, or follow-up periods. However, during the conservation period, homeowners in the Commitment and the combined treatment groups conserved more electricity and contained more conservers than either of the remaining groups. These outcomes were discussed in terms of the comparative effectiveness of minimal justification and incentive strategies for inducing behavioral change.     

Why do young people engage in some civic actions and not others? Exploring the roles of individual and collective civic efficacy

Civic actions are behaviours intended to improve conditions for others or help shape a community's future. Such actions vary widely from voting to voluntary helping, from canvassing to community organizing, and attempts have been made to categorize the array of civic actions. However, the question of why young adults engage in some types of civic actions versus others is not well understood. Using data from 598 White, cisgender, heterosexual young adults in the United States, we examined the relations between individual civic efficacy, collective civic efficacy, and seven actions: writing social media posts, voting, buycotting, volunteering, participating in an organization, supporting political candidates, and protesting. We hypothesized that individual efficacy would be positively related to all seven actions, but collective efficacy would be more strongly related to collective or political actions, compared to the individual or civil ones. Logistic regression analyses showed that individual efficacy positively predicted engagement in all seven civic actions. Individual and collective efficacy had a complex curvilinear relation with buycotting and supporting political candidates. Implications for future research and applications aimed at promoting civic engagement amongst young adults are discussed. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement .     

The fisher-yates exact test and unequal sample sizes

A computational short cut suggested by Feldman and Klinger for the one-sided Fisher-Yates exact test is clarified and is extended to the calculation of probability values for certain two-sided tests when sample sizes are unequal.     

Perception of interpolated position and orientation by vision and active touch

Vision and active touch lead to similar patterns of constant error for the perception of interpolated position in twodimensional and one-dimensional regions, though the errors for touch are larger than those for vision. The error patterns for the orientation of a radius of a semicircle are more complex, but can be interpreted as due to the interaction of two sets of anchors rather than the single pair available for the linear interpolation. The greater size of the touch errors is interpreted as due to a relative overestimation of larger distances by active touch or of smallerdistances by vision.