Expanding the traditional user versus non‐user dichotomy amongst ecstasy users

Differences in the drug use characteristics and psychosocial variables in the use and non‐use of ecstasy within 845 16–25 year‐olds in the UK was examined. Based on levels of ecstasy use and intentions, two groups of non‐users (resistant and vulnerable), three groups of users (light, moderate and heavy) and an ex‐user group were identified. It was found that there is predictive utility in this way of expanding the widely employed ‘user versus non‐user’ dichotomy. Resistant non‐users were more likely to be younger, female, and were characterized by lower levels of use of four other drugs (amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine and LSD). Those ‘at risk’ of using ecstasy reported more frequent use of amphetamine, LSD, and cannabis than resistant non‐users. Heavy user groups reported using amphetamine, cocaine and LSD more frequently than all the other groups. Having ecstasy using friends increased the odds of being an ‘at risk’ non‐user or an ecstasy user. Normative influence also differentiated between the three user groups (light, moderate, and heavy). Beliefs about ecstasy use being immoral, ecstasy offers being difficult to resist, ecstasy use making one feel guilty and ecstasy being readily available differentiated between user and non‐user groups. These factors could usefully inform the content of health education materials designed to change ecstasy use. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

管理者影响策略的结构

本研究根据中国企事业组织内管理者对他人发挥影响力的特点 ,选取反映中国文化的影响计策编成题目 ,并与西方背景下构建的组织影响策略量表汇编成问卷。 2 1 8位中国管理者用汇编的问卷评定他们与直接上司和直接下属在工作中相处时使用这些计策的频率。结果发现 ,在因素水平有“应变控制”和“温情说服”两个正交因素。这两个因素跨影响方向一致。对各因素内的题目做聚类分析 ,发现大多数聚类的内容跨影响方向的一致性不高。与西方的组织策略量表对照 ,因新题目的加入 ,汇编的影响计策量表内的聚类更好地反映了中国管理者使用影响计策的特点。     

Examining Individual Differences in Interpersonal Influence: On the Psychometric Properties of the Generalized Opinion Leadership Scale (GOLS)

Opinion leadership describes an individual's tendency to informally influence others’ attitudes and overt behaviors. In contrast to contemporary views of opinion leadership as a highly domain-specific trait, this paper introduces a multi-faceted personality trait, generalized opinion leadership (GOL) that characterizes exceptionally influential individuals independent of a specific subject area. Two studies report on the psychometric properties of a scale to assess GOL. Study 1 is based on three independent samples (N = 1,575, N = 1,275, and N = 231) and demonstrates the factorial structure of the instrument and its measurement invariance across sex, age, and educational levels. Study 2 (N = 310) analyzes multitrait-multiinformant data to highlight the scale's discriminant validity with regard to innovativeness and trendsetting.     

男性身体意象失调:大众媒体的影响及作用机制

近年来,男性身体意象失调越来越普遍,大众媒体被认为是一种重要的影响因素。大量研究证实了媒体对男性身体意象的消极影响,主要表现在对身体意象的认知、情绪情感和行为调控等方面。研究者基于社会文化理论提出三重影响模型(Thompson,Heinberg,Altabe,Tantleff-Dunn,1999),用以解释媒体影响男性身体意象的作用机制。该模型假设社会文化因素,即家庭、同伴、媒体是身体意象失调的三个最初影响源;外貌比较和"瘦理想"或"肌肉理想"内化是社会文化和身体意象失调之间的中介变量。未来研究应关注被试群体的多样化,将实验室研究和纵向研究相结合,并考虑其他变量的影响作用,对三重影响模型进行丰富和拓展,同时运用脑科学技术探究其神经机制。此外,还应从干预的角度展开研究。     

教师互动问卷中文版的初步修订及应用

教师互动问卷（ＱＴＩ）是国外研究师生间教师行为时广泛采用的有效工具,国内目前尚缺少这方面的研究工具,因此,我们对ＱＴＩ进行了中文版的修订。修订经过了翻译、试测、修订、重测、信度与效度的考查等一系列环节。试测和重测的被试分别为９２名和３４７名中小学教师。统计结果表明,ＱＴＩ中文版有较好的信度、效度和区分度,可以用于我国教师行为的研究。此外,应用ＱＴＩ将教师划分为合作一支配型与对一服从型两类,效果较好     

Perception of managers’ influence depending on status,power, and company performance

This research examines others’ perception of the influence of managers working in successful or unsuccessful companies who possess or lack status (to be respected by others) and power (control of valued resources). Study 1 shows that high‐status managers were judged as more influential in the firm than their low‐status peers, regardless of the company's situation. Study 2 finds that in a context of economic uncertainty, a manager with high status and power is perceived to be more capable of affecting the firm. The effect of power seems to be secondary since when a manager has low status, having high power does not significantly benefit the influence attributed to him or her. Furthermore, dominance (assertive behavior), not warmth, mediated the relationship between status and the attributed influence. Overall, these findings confirm that status is a very potent source of social influence, status and power are distinct constructs with different effects, and dominance rather than warmth is a key personal dimension linked to successful leadership.     

Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

Misinformation often continues to influence people’s memory and inferential reasoning after it has been retracted; this is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Previous research investigating the role of attitude‐based motivated reasoning in this context has found conflicting results: Some studies have found that worldview can have a strong impact on the magnitude of the CIE, such that retractions are less effective if the misinformation is congruent with a person’s relevant attitudes, in which case the retractions can even backfire. Other studies have failed to find evidence for an effect of attitudes on the processing of misinformation corrections. The present study used political misinformation—specifically fictional scenarios involving misconduct by politicians from left‐wing and right‐wing parties—and tested participants identifying with those political parties. Results showed that in this type of scenario, partisan attitudes have an impact on the processing of retractions, in particular (1) if the misinformation relates to a general assertion rather than just a specific singular event and (2) if the misinformation is congruent with a conservative partisanship.     

The Sounds of Silence: Inferences from the Absence of Word‐of‐Mouth

While past work has explored some of the reasons why people themselves may remain silent in a group, almost no research has examined the mirror image of this question: How do consumers construe the silence of others? Do they project the opinions of the speakers in a conversation onto the silent individuals, assuming that silence signals agreement? Do they have a usual or “default” naïve theory of silence that they use to explain it across multiple contexts—i.e., “silence usually signals disagreement?” Or does silence act as a mirror, reflecting observers’ own opinions back at them? Three experiments contrasted perceivers’ estimates of conversational silence with their estimates of unknown opinions outside the conversation. Estimates of opinions outside the conversation generally followed an agreement‐with‐the‐speakers rule—the more an opinion was expressed in the group, the more consumers assumed others would support it too. In contrast, silence inside the conversation was interpreted very differently, serving as a mirror for participants’ own thoughts, even when the vocal majority favored the opposite position. Results suggest a process whereby observers project the reason they personally would have been silent in the group (given their opinion) onto silence, leading to an inference that the silents agree with the self.