Academic Capitalism Academic Integrity Accounting Adolescence and Youth Adolescent Psychology Adult Development Adult Education Aging Alcoholism & Drug Addiction Alternative Education Applied Psychology Applied Research Arts Education Assessment Behavioral Economics Behavioral Sciences Bilingual Education Business Business Administration Business Education Business Ethics Business Law Change Agency Charter Schools Child Development Child Psychology Classroom Technology Clinical Counseling Clinical Psychology Clinical Social Work Cognitive Science Collegiate Education Community Social Work Competitive Intelligence Consumer Psychology Counseling Curriculum & Instruction Decision Sciences Developmental Disorders Developmental Psychology Disparity Research Distance Learning Doctoral Education Early Childhood Education Early Intervention E-commerce Economics Education Administration Educational Diversity Educational Change Educational Interventions Educational Leadership Educational Psychology Elementary Education English as a Foreign Language English as a Second Language Entrepreneurship Environmental Psychology Experimental Psychology Facilitation Families & Parenting Finance Financial Management in Higher Education Foreign Trade Gender Global Economics Graduate Education Guidance Counseling Higher Education Higher Education International Academic Research Conference Higher Education Funding Recruitment Higher Education Retention Holistic Education Home Schooling April Therapy 17-19,Information 2013 Systems Information Management Systems Human Development Human Rights Individual Instructional Delivery Methods Integrative Movements Interdisciplinary Research International Business Scottsdale, Arizona International Education Research International Finance International Politics K-12 Education Knowledge Management Leadership Learning Magnet Schools Management Marketing Marriage & Family Therapy Memory & Learning Middle School Education Music Education New Program Development Non-Traditional Presentation Learners Relapse Prevention Electronic Online Instruction OrganizationalPortfolio Management Organizational Psychology Peace Behavioral Science & Conflict Political Psychology Pre-School Education PrimaryTrack Education Private School Education Public Administration Public Policy Public School Initiatives School Counseling School Social Work School Psychology Secondary Education Small Business Social Issues Social Movements Social Psychology Special Education Social Neuroscience Social Structure Social Work Teaching Vocational-Technical Education Undergraduate l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) offers electronic presentation portfolios as a courtesy to the attendees of our conferences. Materials are the sole intellectual property of the presenters and are displayed only with their permission. All questions about content should be directed to the presenters. Pages
Table of Contents
4-28
The Relationship of Cultural Mistrust and African American College Students’ Attitudes Toward Mental Health Treatment – Dr. Mavis Braxton
29-50
Examining the Differences in Facebook Behaviors Between an Older and Younger Age Cohort –Lizette Luevano
50-74
The Modern Sex Doll Owner: A Descriptive Analysis - What are we Talking About? – Sarah Valverde
75-87
Juvenile Recidivism in Urban Versus Rural Areas – A Survival Analysis of Large Longitudinal Data – Dr. Daniel Lee
88-116
The American Male and Female 35 Years Later: Bem Sex Role Inventory Revisited – Dr. Denise Guastello and Dr. Stephen Guastello
117-140
Bullying in the Counselors Working Environment: A Texas Wide Survey of Counselors – Lindsey Liles and Kay Mailander
141-163
Attitudes Toward Poverty Revisited – Charity Perry, Dr. Theodore Bell, and Dr. Gretchen Peterson
164-182
Test Anxiety Management - Efficacy of Desensitization Strategies for Test Anxiety Management – Dr. Margaret Kasimatis
183-194
Developing Multicultural Awareness Among Study Abroad Students Through International Service Learning Programming – Dr. Lucinda Woodward
195-261
Emotional Intelligence Among Black belts: Predictor of Success – Dr. Chris A. Moser and Dr. Cheri Hampton-Farmer
262-296
Parenting Experiences of Some Nobel Laureates – Dr. Echo Wu
Mavis Braxton, Ph.D.
African American college students face multiple challenges in their quest to graduate from college. Many would benefit from campus counseling services. However, despite emotional distress, behavioral difficulties, or other problems these students may experience, few African American college students seek help from the counselor. It has been theorized that the cultural mistrust has been developed within many African Americans as a result of two centuries of slavery which left of its psychological scars.
The
graduation rate for African American college students in 2000 was 37% in comparison to the White student graduation rate of 59% (Cross & Slater, 2001). Although university counseling centers offer resources to assist students, few African American college students seek help from these centers although they may be experiencing mental health symptoms (Wallace & Constantine, 2005, Floyd, 2007)).
Although
there are many studies that evaluate the affects of cultural mistrust as it relates to help-seeking behaviors among African Americans, there are no studies that evaluate the influence of cultural mistrust as it relates to attitudes and help-seeking behaviors after controlling for gender, economic status, and parent education.
The
purpose of this study was to identify the extent to which cultural mistrust is related to the attitudes of African American college students toward mental health treatment and help seeking behaviors.
Historically,
African Americans have been suspicious of any assistance that comes from government or institutionalized agencies. This phenomenon is referred to as cultural mistrust (Terrell & Terrell, 1996). Cultural mistrust and the attitude of African Americans toward mental health treatment as demonstrated by help seeking behaviors is the focus of this study.
To
what extent is cultural mistrust related to the attitudes of African American college students toward mental health treatment and their willingness to seek such treatment voluntarily?
Independent
Cultural mistrust Attitude toward mental health treatment
Dependent
Variables
Attitudes toward mental health treatment Willingness to seek mental health treatment
Control
Variables
Variables:
Family of origin economic level Gender Educational background of parents
Quantitative
Approach to Inquiry Multiple regression analysis Convenience Sample African American college students Participants in a university recognized student organization
Cultural Mistrust Inventory (CMI) developed by Terrell and Terrell (1981).
The Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale developed by Fischer and Turner (1970).
Willingness to seek help and refer a friend: Two questions that asked respondents to rate the likelihood of using the campus counseling service themselves, and the likelihood of recommending a friend to use the campus counseling center.
1. Permission was obtained by the leaders of the student organizations and their sponsors to distribute the survey during one of their regular student organization meetings. 2. I explained to the students present at the meeting the purpose of the survey and asked for their participation. I explained that their participation was voluntary. 3. The survey was distributed and collected. 4. No names or identifying information was on the survey to protect confidentiality.
Gender Male (=0) Female (=1)
75 (58.1) 54 (41.9)
Education (highest parent) Other (=missing) Elementary School (=1) High School (=2) Technical School (=3) College (=4) Graduate School (=5)
1 (0.8) 4 (3.1) 27 (20.9) 15 (11.6) 65 (50.4) 17 (13.2)
Low economic status No (=0) Yes (=1)
Correlations with dependent Variables n=129
Point Biserial Sig. (1-tailed) Point Biserial Sig. (1-tailed)
-.183 .019
-.065 .234
.058 .256
-.001 .496
-.034 .353
-.152 .043
-.109 .110
Education Spearman’s rho Sig. (1-tailed)
.026 .386
Economic Status
Mean of Use/Refer
Gender
Help Seeking Attitude Scale
Cultural Mistrust Pearson r Sig. (1-tailed)
Model Summary of variables predicting help seeking attitudes
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Std. Error of the Change Statistics Square
Estimate
R Square Change F Change df1
df2
Sig F Change
1
.070² .005
-019
8.91734
.005
.208
3 125
.891
2
.168² .028
.003
8.84777
.023
2.973
1 124
.087
Predictors: (Constant), Low Economic Status, Gender, Higher education of mother or father
Predictors: (Constant), Low Economic Status, Gender, Higher education of mother or father, Cultural Mistrust all 48
Dependent Variable: Help Seeking Attitude Scale all 29 items
Coefficients Associated with Each Model in Both Models
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients B 1
(Constant)
Std. Error
Beta
46.123
3.234
Gender
.455
1.600
.025
Higher of mother
-.082
.763
-.010
t
Sig.
14.261
.000
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
39.722
52.524
.284 .777
-2.712
3.62
-107
.915
-1.591
1.428
-.727
.468
-4.434
2.050
8.738
.00
43.003
58.191
or father education Low Economic Status -1.192 1.636 2
-.068
(Constant)
55.597
6.363
Gender
.547
1.588
.031
.344 .731
-2.597
3.691
-.028
.757
-.003
-036 .971
-1.527
1.472
Low Economic Status -1.179 1.625
-.067
-.726 .469
-4.396
2.038
Cultural Mistrust Scale -.056 .032
-.153
-1.724 .087
Higher of mother or father education
Dependent variable: Help seeking Attitude scale All 29 Items
-.120
.008
Multiple Regression Analysis on Variables as Predictors of Use and Refer a Friend ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 7.738 3 2.579 1.612 .190 Residual 200.010 125 1.600 Total 207.746 128 2 Regression 9.962 4 2.490 1.561 .189 Residual 197.786 124 1.595 Total 207.748 128 a. Predictors (Constant), Low Economic Status, Gender, Higher of mother or father education b. Predictors (Constant), Low Economic Status, Gender, Higher of mother or father education, Cultural Mistrust Scale All 48 Items c. Dependent Variable: Mean of use Counseling or Refer Friend
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1 (Constant) 2.574 .459 Gender -.471 .227 Higher of mother .011 .108 or father education Low Economic Status .160 .232 2 (Constant) 3.500 .908 Gender -.462 .227 Higher of mother .016 .108 or father education Low Economic Status . 161 .232 Cultural Mistrust Scale -.005 .005
Standardized Coefficients Beta t
-.183 .009 -.063 -.179 .014 .063 -.104
95.0% Confidence Interval for B Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
5.611 .000 -2.074 .040 .099 .921
1.666 -.920 -.203
.687 .494 -.300 3.854 .000 1.702 -2.036 .044 -.910 .148 .882 -.198 .693 .490 -1.181 .240
-.298 -.015
3.48 -.02 .22 .61 5.29 -.01 .23 .62 .00
Outreach
services that target male students to consider the use of mental health services is an important consideration based on the findings of this study. African American college students experience a higher rate of stress as it relates to academic performance and interpersonal stress with lower levels of support (Negga, Applewhite, & Livingston, 2007, p. 824). Graduation rates from college are low for African Americans (Cross & Slater, 2001).
It
appears that in general, the university should consider more promotion of counseling service availability. In addition, based on the findings, it would be important to determine how to encourage the male students to use or refer others to mental health treatment. The participating university has only one counselor available to provide services to a campus community of over 5000 students.
Assess the level cultural mistrust among young African Americans as compared to the level of cultural mistrust among older African Americans. Repeat this study at a traditionally White institution to see if there is a difference in perception regarding the issue of cultural mistrust and help-seeking behaviors by those African American students. Collect data regarding the experience of students of color who attend counseling. Test the hypothesis of cultural mistrust at a traditionally White university to see if African American students have different attitudes toward help seeking in a different way when not in a Black majority environment.
The
results of this study will be disseminated to the community through peer reviewed journal articles. In addition I plan to present these findings at local, regional and national conferences as well as meetings with university student affairs administrators. I plan to make sure that the students who participated in the study have a chance to discuss the findings and/or receive a short summary of the results.
Historically black colleges and universities should not take for granted that cultural mistrust issues do not resonate at their. Based on this study, cultural mistrust remains a possible explanation for negative attitudes toward mental health treatment; however, it clearly does not explain a large proportion of the variance in attitudes and behaviors related to mental health services. Therefore, other variables should be explored so that universities can find ways to help African American students take advantage of services that could potentially help them deal with the stresses involved in obtaining their college degrees.
Cross, W. E. (2003). Tracing the historical origins of youth delinquency & violence: Myths & realities about Black culture. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 67-82. Cross, T., & Slater, R. B. (2001). The troublesome decline in African-American college student graduation rates. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 9(1), 102-109. Floyd, S. C. (2007). The attitudes of African American undergraduate college students toward psychotherapy. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67(10-B), 6052-6060. Fischer, B. & Hartman, D. J. (1995). The impact of race on the social experience of college students at a predominately White university. Journal of Blacks Studies, 29, 117-133. Fischer, E., & Turner, J. (1970). Orientations to seeking professional help: Development and research utility of an attitude scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 79-90.
Gabbidon, S. L., & Peterson, S. A. (2006). Living while Black: A State-Level analysis of the influence of select social stressors on the quality of life among Black Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 37(1), 83-102. Grier, W. H., & Cobbs, P. M. (1968). Black rage. New York: Bantam Books. Negga, F., Applewhite, S., & Livingston, I. (2007). African American college students and stress: School racial composition, self-esteem and social support. College Student Journal, 41(4), 823-830. Schiele, J. H. (2005). Cultural oppression and the high risk status of African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 35(6), 802-826.
Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. L. (1981). An Inventory to measure cultural mistrust among Blacks. Western Journal of Black Studies, 3, 180-185. Terrell, F., & Terrell, S. (1996). The Cultural mistrust inventory: Development, findings, and implications. As cited in Jones, R. L. (ed.). (1996). Handbook of tests and measurements for Black populations. Hampton: Cobb & Henry Publishers. Wallace, B. C., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Africentric cultural values, psychological helpseeking attitudes, and self-concealment in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(4), 369-385.
Examining the Differences in Facebook Behaviors between an Older and Younger Age Cohort
Liz Luevano Dr. Martin Fiebert Dr. Christopher Warren Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach
Introduction
Facebook: largest social networking site with over 1.06 billion monthly users across the globe (Tam, 2013 )
Lack of research among different age cohorts
Recently, researchers have turned to personality factors as major predictors of online behavior – Big 5 Model
Introduction Ryan & Xenos (2011): Examined how personality factors affect an individuals usage and non-usage on the site –Results; those who formed part of the SNS scored higher as extroverts & narcissists in comparison to those who did not form part of the SNS
Introduction
Carpenter, Green, & LaFlam (2011) Predicted – Extroverts: direct interactions & use the SNS as method of planning for social events. – Introverts: would be less open on SNS & maintain online-only friendships – Results: Extroversion did not foretell individual online behavior. Instead, Openness to experience was a better indicator
Introduction
Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais (2012): Examined differences & commonalties in information sharing & privacy control Compared an older generation of users to teenage users Results: – No significant difference in number of friends found – Teens added more people regardless of knowing them personally or not.
This study‌
Utilizes a new, specific typology based on the actual behaviors being exhibited by users – Separated into 5 categories using the following coding descriptors: Observer, Scrap booker, Entrepreneur, Activist, & Social butterfly proposed by Vaughn, Warren, & Fiebert (2012)
Will contribute to the new pool of research by examining the difference in online behavior among young and older adult Facebook users
Hypotheses
Older adults users will display less activity overall than younger users The older cohort will engage in more Activist and Entrepreneur use Young adult users will express more Observer and Social butterfly activity Both age groups will overlap on Scrap booker behavior
Method
Participants: Sample size- N= 134 (81 young adult, 53 older adult) Young adult users- ages 18-28 Older adult users- ages 50 and older Omitted information lead to unequal N
Method
Materials:
Coding sheet- (Fiebert, 2013; Vaughn, Warren & Fiebert, 2012).
Vaughn et al,. (2012) Conducted a separate study focusing on investigating inter-rater reliability. – Reliability found high in terms of internal consistency among raters validating the coding scheme created.
Procedure
Randomly selected profiles were coded Names were omitted and replaced with a number to keep track of data Researchers main focus- Last 10 posts and most recent activity To separate behavior, five typologies were utilized
Coding Descriptors • Observer- defined by the users behavior of following • • • •
other peoples profiles and commenting others status, post, and photos. Scrap booker- defined by behaviors such as posting photos and descriptions of their day or events they participated in. Activist- demonstrates support or information on political or environmental issues or organizes events for associations. Entrepreneur- showing business related activities, sales, or entertainment references. Social butterfly- demonstrates majority of the user’s behavior as communication purposes and social events.
FACEBOOK CODING SHEET Personal Info Sex: M ___ F ____
Interested in (sexual orientation): _ ______
Age (in years): __ Marital Status: Single__ Divorced/Widow__ In a relationship__ Married __ Highest degree: High school____ College____ Adv. Degree ____ Trade School (e.g., Cosmo, Computer, Culinary)____ Religion: __ ______ Political View: ___ Pictures (count): ___ Profile Picture: Alone ____ w/pet ______ w/friend _______ w/ partner ________ Logo______ Other_____ Friend Info How many friends: _______ Percent Women: ______% (out of random 10, taking one from each letter of alphabet) Organizations/Businesses: __% (out of first 10 friends)
Last 10 Posts: Place check marks for how each comment might be categorized Coding Descriptors: Observer: following other peoples’ profiles, commenting on others status, locations (not necessarily negative) Scrapbook: posting family/friend photos, descriptions of events, outings Activist: political/environmental issues, organizing events for associations, “superfan� Entrepreneur: business related activities, sales, product, entertainment references Social: talking to others, communication, social events Date
Observer
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Scrapbook
Activist
Entrepreneur
Social butterfly
Other (describe )
# likes
Posted by self
Replies othe r
self
other
Last 10 Activities: Place check marks for each comment might be categorized Date
Made new Frien d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comment (own photo)
Comment (others photo)
Commen t (own post)
Commen t (others post)
Change info
Change picture
Like something (describe)
Checking in Alone
W/Friend s (#)
Results
Activity Level (Mean)
25
Overall Facebook Activity between Age Groups 20.75
20 15
12.49
10 5
ld er O
Yo un ge r
0
Age Cohort
Younger Older
Results
Mean
Differences in Facebook Behavior between a Younger and Older Age Cohort
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Younger Older
c ia
t re
l ..
.
.
.
r
p..
i st
b ..
rv e
t iv
se
r ap
So
En
Ac
Sc
Ob
Category
Discussion
First hypothesis was not supported; older users showed greater overall activity than younger adults Contrary to predictions: Younger users more Entrepreneur Older users more Activist activity, but younger cohort showed much greater activity than anticipated. Similarly, younger Facebook users did not significantly show more Observer behavior compared to the older group as originally expected Supporting our predictions: Scrap booker typology, both age cohorts did overlap on behaviors Social Butterfly typology, where young adult Facebook users significantly showed greater the older adult users.
Discussion
For replication purposes: Larger, more diverse N Smaller age groups- avoid large variability Obtain further access to profiles
References Carpenter, J.M.,Green, M.C., & LaFlam, J. (2011). People or profiles: Individual differences in online social networking use. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 538-541. Christofides, E., Muise, A., Desmarais, S. (2012). Hey Mom, What’s on Your Facebook? Comparing Facebook Disclosure and Privacy in Adolescents and Adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science January, 3, 4854. Eldon, E., (2012, Feb 1). Facebook’s S-1 Reveals: 845 Million Users Every Month, More Than Half Daily, Half Mobile. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/facebooks-s-1-845-million-users-everymonth-more-than-half-daily-and-nearly-half-mobile/. Fiebert, M. S. (in press). Research note: The origins of a typology of Facebook users. International Review of Social Sciences and
Humanities.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,13, 276-297.
References (Continued) McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the Five Factor Model and Its applications (special edition). Journal of Personality, 60,175-215. Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers In Human Behavior, 27, 1658-1664. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S.M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza.G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420-433. Tam, D. (2013). Facebook by the numbers:1.06 billion monthly active users. www.http://newsCnet.com/8301-1023_3-57566550-93/facebook-by-the... Vaughn, E.L., Warren, C.R. & Fiebert, M. (2012). Find Me On Facebook: A New Typology for Online Behavior. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association. San Francisco, CA.
Questions‌ Email:
lizetteluevano@yahoo.com
THE MODERN SEX DOLL-OWNER: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYISIS WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
Fact or Fiction? This is a real thing: Over 25 doll companies across the globe. Real Dolls, Sinthetics‌ Major U.S. manufacturer sells roughly 3,500; dolls a year priced anywhere from $6,000$50,000. Almost all sales are done via online purchasing. Online forums created by doll-owners and enthusiasts.
• Ave. $3,500-$10,000 • buyer chooses face type, skin tone, eye color, eye-makeup, lip color, nail color, hair color and style • Available in male, female, and transgendered bodytypes • Ht. is 4’10” to 5’6”, wt. is approx. 120lbs • Heart beat and body heat features avail.
Who’s talking?
The Media Online magazines, blogs, forums TV Shows, documentaries, movies, books Robotics engineers, Hiroshi Ishiguro; A.I.; elder care robots
Nip/Tuck National Geographic House
Finding Information Review of the literature Review Online forums Conduct Online survey
HISTORY OF “STATUE LOVE” •
•
GREEK AND ROMAN STATUES PYGMALION
• PTOLEMAIC STATUE MARRIAGES • DIONYSIAN ORGIES AND AUTOMATA • DAMES DE VOYAGE (“Sailor’s Friends”) Venus de Milo 120-130BC
EARLY PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE • AGALMATOPHILIA /STATUEPHILIA “Agalmatophilia is when a human establishes a personal relationship with a complete statue, as a statue” (Scobie & Taylor, 1975).
• KRAFFT-EBING’S SEXUAL LIFE OF OUR TIME A violation of statues and is attributed to an “abnormally intense libido and defective virility or courage, or lack of opportunity for normal sexual gratification.” • Similar to necrophilia, “doll fetish,” due to sexual immaturity, Pygmalionism… • Absence of Clinical Case-Studies on “statue love” • No research on “doll love”
Oskar Kokoschka: Austrian-born poet and artist commissioned doll in 1918 • Almost killed in WWI • Torrid love affair with composer, Alma Malher • Mood swings
Oskar Kokoschka, Mann mit Puppe, bpk Berlin, Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Foto: Jorg P. Anders.
Not a new concept‌ What’s changed? Materials, craftsmanship,
and availability.
Who’s Buying? Manufactures estimate most customers
are single males aged 45-60. Some doll-owners are married, some are female, some struggle with physical and emotional difficulties. Some doll-owners own multiple dolls. Not all doll-owners use their dolls for sexual stimulation.
Doll-Owners Fantasy Photography Companionship Collection
Varied levels of attachment to their dolls reported. Doll-owners know their dolls are not real‌
Research Questions: The WHAT before the WHY Who owns a sex doll? What purpose does the doll serve? How many sex dolls do doll-owners have? What are the rates of mental illness among this population and what is their level of satisfaction with life? Do doll-owners participate in psychotherapy? Do doll-owners suffer from sexual functioning issues?
Methods: Instruments A 45-item survey addressing demographic
data, relationship status, primary purpose for owning a sex-doll, hx of mental or sexual dysfunction, satisfaction with human and sex doll relationships. SWLS (Diener et al., 1985): 5 Question Measure to assess global life satisfaction. SWLS sample scores compared against similar population (George, 1991).
Methods: Participants 73 began the survey, 61 completed 15% (n=9) = male non-doll-owners who planned on purchasing a doll in the future 10% (n=6) = female doll-owners 75% (n=46) = male doll-owners 63% Live in U.S. 13% Canada, France (n=3), Germany (n=3), U.K (n=2)., Australia (n=1), New Zealand (n=1), and the Netherlands (n=1).
Online survey via doll forum The demographic data for male doll-owners (n=46) are as follows: Mean age = 43, (sd = 11.5), 85% identified as Caucasian (n=39) 71% (n=33) reported being single 67% (n=31) work 30 hours or more a week 65% (n=30) earn between $30,000-$90,0000 annually; 100% (n=46) report holding a high school degree or higher 87% percent (n=40) identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual.
Results: Primary Purpose: 70% of the doll-owners report a primary
purpose of their doll is sexual stimulation 30% report companionship is a primary purpose of their doll 17% (n=7) report using their doll to enhance sex activities with human partner Other uses: photography, art, fantasy
How many? Forty percent of male doll-owners (n = 18) own two or more sex dolls. A Pearson correlation was calculated examining the relationship between income and the number of dolls owned. A weak negative correlation that was not significant was found, r = .062, p > .05. Income is not related to the number of dolls owned by one individual.
Sexual Experience: 40% report their primary sex partner is a
doll 65% rate their sexual experience with dolls as “above average” or “excellent” 57% have experienced sexual dysfunction (erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation; unable to oragasm) 40% report feeling some shame or embarrassment concerning their dolls
Well-Being 33% percent of male doll-owners (n=15) reported participating in therapy: 11% (n=5) anxiety; 19.6% (n=9) depression; 9% (n=4) relationship/marital difficulties 2.2% (n=1) for issues relating to sexuality. 57% report issues in sexual functioning Rates of depression for doll-owners were not significantly different from US depression rates for males. SWLS for doll-owners was not significantly different from comparable population value.
Diagnostic and Treatment Implications Doll-ownership alone does not warrant a
diagnosis of a paraphilia. Heterogeneity of doll-owners. Where some doll-owners exclusively use sex dolls for solely sexual activity, others report infrequent sexual use of their dolls.
Diagnostic and Treatment Implications Not participating in therapy for dolls Appear to function well enough No indication of significant rates mental
illness at this time Reported Depression, sexual dysfunction
Adaptive
or
Based on anecdotes: Dolls alleviate: loneliness, unpredictability/trauma of human relationships, sexual urges, boredom. Dolls provide: fantasy, comfort, hobby, alternative to prostitution and infidelity. Doll forums provide: social networking, support, outlet for creativity
Maladaptive? Owning a doll may: promote isolating tendencies, maintain social phobias, maintain or exacerbate sexual dysfunction create social stigma, limit opportunities for growth and social learning.
Owning a doll may negatively impact social and familial relationships
Sociocultural Implications Cross-cultural phenomenon. Creation of online community and established
their own culture although they may come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and ethnicities. We must consider a social constructivist perspective and consider context when observing behavior. Quantitative surveys of sexual behavior, like this one, can offer only limited insights into social and cultural factors associated with different behaviors and offers no insight into the ways the behavior is shaped in different cultures.
Research Challenge and Direction A minority population wary of being pathologized, outed, and bullied How to contact? Limited survey Language barriers Comparable population values Self-reports among hidden populations are often distorted
Clinical interviews Qualitative study of online forum posts Psychometric tools Cross-cultural investigation Investigation into dolls as therapeutic device
Conclusion Conversation starter We’ve barely scratched the surface Some trends found among online forum users
but the population is still mysterious and warrants further investigation
Academic, Behavioral Sciences & Business Research Conferences April 17-19, 2013, Scottsdale, AZ
David E. Kalist Daniel Y. Lee Shippensburg University Stephen J. Spurr Wayne State University
Introduction
• In 2008, juveniles accounted for 16% and 26% of all arrests for violent crime and property crime respectively • The link between adolescent delinquency and adult criminal behavior • Juvenile recidivism deserves more attention • youths are more malleable • more easily redirected into productive behavior.
Background • Three major issues for juvenile recidivism research • Factors that affect repeated delinquency • Effectiveness of intervention programs • Transfer of juveniles to adult courts
Contributions of our study • More appropriate methods over previous studies • Estimation of parametric survival models
• Large longitudinal dataset • Recidivism in rural v. urban areas
Data • A large database for juvenile activity for Pennsylvania • • • • • •
Over 180,000 subjects 1997 – 2005 period 67 counties (both urban and rural) Each juvenile’s age, race, ethnicity, county of residence, school info Family status (parents married, divorced, separated, deceased, etc.) Living arrangements (live with mother, father, both, relative, stepmother, foster parent, etc.) • Detailed information on charges and outcomes
• Additional county-level data added for our study • Number of police per capita • Real income per capita, TANF per capita, etc.
Model Estimating parametric survival models ln �� = �0 + �� �� + �� where the time to the second referral for the jth juvenile (tj) was specified with a generalized gamma distribution X = vector of explanatory variables • indicative variables (rural v. urban) • controls (age, age squared, race, sex, ethnicity, living arrangements, severity of the first offense, attorney representation, education, and county level variables (per capital income, TANF, police, arrest rate, etc.)
Empirical Results • Interpreting coefficients • Coefficients represent the effect of a variable on the length of time to a juvenile’s second referral. • If greater than one: positive benefits on recidivism • If less than one? Quicker relapse into criminal activity • (e.g.) If male coefficient = 0.50? For males the length of time to second referral is only half that of females.
Empirical Results Table C11. Results of a Basic Recidivism Model All Counties Variable
rural
Coefficient
1.2938
Standard Error
0.0179
Excluding Philadelphia P value
0.0000
Coefficient
1.191174
Log likelihood
-120061.13
-96269.55
No. of subjects
187173.00
158977
No. of failures
35337.00
28372
Standard Error
P value
0.016561 0.0000
Empirical Results Table C12. Results from a Recidivism Model with Sociodemographic and County Level Variables All Counties Variable Coefficient Std Error rural 1.0339 0.0129 male 0.7404 0.0101 age 0.0156 0.0006 age squared 1.1660 0.0016 Black 0.9755 0.0105 other race 1.3422 0.0345 Hispanic 0.7665 0.0151 live with mother 0.9174 0.0091 deceased parent 0.8200 0.0159 felony offense 0.8056 0.0094 private attorney 1.0848 0.0204 in school 1.0494 0.0121 special education 1.7322 0.1960 alternative education 0.7632 0.0624 disposition warning County Level Variables cases dismissed (%) per capita income per capita Temporary Assistance for Needy Families arrest rate police per capita Log likelihood No. of subjects No. of failures
-90553.706 187037 35328
P value 0.0080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010
Coefficient 1.0850 0.7441 0.0152 1.1667 1.0273 1.4248 0.7478 0.9455 0.8381 0.8036 1.0752 1.0635 1.4932 0.6701 1.0022
All Counties Std Error 0.0171 0.0103 0.0006 0.0017 0.0124 0.0380 0.0154 0.0095 0.0165 0.0096 0.0205 0.0126 0.1700 0.0555 0.0182
P value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9040
0.9879 1.0000 0.9991
0.0005 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1.0000 1.0012
0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0000
-90021.99 187037 35328
Empirical Results Table C13. Results from a Recidivism Model with Sociodemographic and County Level Variables, Excluding the County of Philadelphia
Variable male age age squared black Hispanic other race live with mother dead parent felony offense private attorney rural in school special education alternative education
Excluding Philadelphia Coefficient Std Error 0.7947 0.0112 0.0215 0.0009 1.1532 0.0017 0.9999 0.0121 0.8235 0.0183 1.7371 0.0606 0.9223 0.0099 0.8438 0.0191 0.8308 0.0107 1.1140 0.0227 1.0115 0.0125 1.0691 0.0134 1.5545 0.1712 0.7356 0.0585
P value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9910 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3540 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Excluding Philadelphia Coefficient Std Error 0.7906 0.0113 0.0208 0.0009 1.1541 0.0017 1.0391 0.0134 0.7863 0.0180 1.6896 0.0592 0.9529 0.0104 0.8327 0.0191 0.8328 0.0110 1.1102 0.0228 1.0266 0.0159 1.0715 0.0138 1.3736 0.1523 0.6697 0.0537
P value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000
disposition warning County Level Variables
0.9363
0.0176
0.0000
cases dismissed (%) per capita income per capita Temporary Assistance for Needy Families arrest rate police per capita
0.9914 1.0000 0.9963 1.0000 1.0002
0.0005 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0950
Log likelihood No. of subjects No. of failures
-72512.96 158852 28364
-72064.79 158852 28364
Empirical Results Table C14. Results from a Recidivism Model with Interaction Variables Standard Variable
Coefficient
Error
P value
male
0.7266
0.0112
0.0000
age
0.0156
0.0006
0.0000
age squared
1.1659
0.0016
0.0000
black
0.9656
0.0110
0.0020
Hispanic
0.7828
0.0160
0.0000
other race
1.1855
0.0344
0.0000
live with mother
0.9291
0.0103
0.0000
dead parent
0.8115
0.0172
0.0000
felony offense
0.7916
0.0101
0.0000
private attorney
1.0603
0.0214
0.0040
rural
0.9179
0.0349
0.0240
in school
1.0489
0.0136
0.0000
special education
1.8245
0.2203
0.0000
alternative education
0.8676
0.0847
0.1460
rural x black
1.0548
0.0365
0.1230
rural x Hispanic
1.0213
0.1433
0.8800
rural x male
1.0890
0.0355
0.0090
rural x live w/ mother
0.9429
0.0230
0.0160
rural x dead parent
1.0764
0.0566
0.1610
rural x other race
1.6274
0.1049
0.0000
rural x in school
1.0233
0.0289
0.4150
rural x alt. education
0.5807
0.1033
0.0020
rural x special ed.
0.5756
0.1968
0.1060
rural x felony offense
1.0980
0.0344
0.0030
rural x private attorney
1.1558
0.0642
0.0090
Log likelihood
-90498.778
No. of subjects
187037
No. of failures
35328
Concluding Remarks • Summary • Juvenile crime is a serious challenge for any society, as it is closely related to adult crimes. • Understanding the factors that our results found to be associated with recidivism may make it possible to identify juveniles at risk and formulate more effective policies to assist them.
Thank you!
The American Male and Female 35 Years Later: Bem Sex Role Inventory Revisited Denise D. Guastello, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Carroll University Stephen J. Guastello, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Marquette University
• There have been significant transitions in Western society over the past 35 years regarding the nature of male and female stereotypes. • The objective of the present study was to revisit the traits that initially comprised the stereotypes as Bem (1974, 1975) had identified them. • Do they contribute to notions of male and female stereotypes as young adults see them today?
Bem (1974): 4 types Stereotypical male Stereotypical female Androgynous Undifferentiated
Participants • 1075 undergraduates from two US Midwestern universities who were enrolled in psychology courses and volunteered for psychological research • 504 were male and 571 were female • 89% White, 4% Hispanic, 3% AfricanAmerican, 3% Asian, and 1% Other • The region of the country is known to be relatively slow to uptake cultural changes compared to the coastal regions. • Data were collected in 2009-2010.
Background literature • Jung – male and female aspects of personality co-exist. They are not polar opposites. – Thus androgyny is possible. – M & F aspects of personality affect relationships between men and women.
• Gender roles expressed as – Activities, preferences – Occupational choices and perceived opportunities
Have People Changed? • Early 1980s: Describe the best (business) managers – Describe the best female business managers – Male stereotypic adjectives in both cases.
• 1990-2000: Self-reports of M traits increased for both M & F, but F traits did not.
• 2003: More androgyny among college students if parents were androgynous – More among young men – Women become more often stereotypically male using 1974 definition. • Driving during the date/paying during date • Career preferences • Hobbies such as sports versus sewing/knitting
Is the Stereotypic Male Dead? • Woodhill & Samuels (2004): – Society at turn of the century sounded the death knell for the stereotypic male. “The old framework, however, has not yet been replaced by an unambiguous, socially sanctioned, alternative notion of what it is to be male…” and that there is “an apparent confusion for modern men.”
Data Analysis • Ss rated each adjective used in Bem (1974) as M, F or Neutral. • Chi-Sq. actual versus equal classification. • Adjective (re-)assigned to most frequent classification. • Chi-Sq by gender of respondents to determine if M and F participants classified an adjective differently.
Item No. M1 N2 F3 N4 M5
Item Acts as leader Adaptable Affectionate Conceited Aggressive
Percent Female
Percent Male
03 35 90 19 02
46 10 01 40 93
Percent Neutral
χ2 by Gender
51 54 09 41 05
0.246 6.901* 2.329 7.286* 0.323
Item No. F6 M7 N8 F9 N10
Item Cheerful Ambitious Conscientious Childlike Conventional
Percent Female 58 11 59 09 23
Percent Male 01 16 03 57 15
Percent Neutral 40 73 38 35 62
χ2 by Gender 1.164 4.026 3.852 1.811 2.886
Item No. M11 F12 M13 N14 N15
Item Analytical Compassionate Assertive Friendly No harsh language
Percent Female
Percent Male
27 85 10 30 72
29 01 59 02 01
Percent Neutral 44 14 31 68 27
χ2 by Gender 9.620** 3.220 3.966 1.725 6.466*
Item No. N16 M17 F18 M19 N20
Item Happy Athletic Soothe hurt feelings Competitive Helpful
Percent Female 22 01 92 02 49
Percent Male 01 57 03 71 02
Percent Neutral 77 43 05 27 49
χ2 by Gender 0.177 3.445 0.837 2.318 10.127**
Item No. F21 N22 M23 F24 M25
Item
Percent Female
Percent Male
Feminine Inefficient Defends beliefs Flatterable Dominant
97 05 09 65 02
01 27 14 06 88
Percent Neutral
χ2 by Gender
02 68 77 29 10
1.251 1.812 0.084 9.264** 1.083
Item No. N26 F27 N28 M29 F30
Item Jealous Gentle Likeable Forceful Gullible
Percent Female
Percent Male
30 88 18 01 56
24 02 03 88 04
Percent Neutral 46 09 79 11 40
χ2 by Gender 3.407 1.799 4.465 0.716 1.044
Item No. M31 N32 F33 N34 M35
Item Leadership ability Moody Loves kids Reliable Independent
Percent Female 03 78 69 30 12
Percent Male 24 03 01 05 28
Percent Neutral 72 18 30 65 61
χ2 by Gender 3.014 1.756 0.704 2.081 2.504
Item No. F36 M37 N38 F39 N40
Item Loyal Individual Secretive Sensitive to others Sincere
Percent Female
Percent Male
27 10 42 89 54
08 20 19 00 03
Percent Neutral 65 70 39 10 43
χ2 by Gender 0.742 0.094 1.646 0.790 5.962
Item No. M41 F42 M43 N44 F45
Item Makes decisions easily Shy Masculine Solemn Softspoken
Percent Female
Percent Male
05 41 01 14 74
49 05 96 19 02
Percent Neutral 46 54 03 67 24
χ2 by Gender 3.437 0.133 1.316 0.107 1.546
Item No. N46 M47 F48 N49 N50
Item Tactful Self-reliant Sympathetic Self-sufficient Theatrical
Percent Female 22 11 85 11 51
Percent Male 23 40 02 31 04
Percent Neutral 54 49 14 58 44
χ2 by Gender 14.117*** 8.736* 9.490** 2.861 2.234
Item No. F51 N52 M53 F54 M55
Item Tender Truthful Strong personality Understanding Takes a stand
Percent Female
Percent Male
86 24 04 63 06
02 06 35 03 39
Percent Neutral 12 70 61 34 55
χ2 by Gender 0.441 5.012 4.193 1.402 1.570
Item No. N56 F57 N58 M59 F60
Item
Percent Female
Percent Male
Unpredictable Warm Unsystematic Takes risks Yielding
19 71 09 01 42
28 03 26 61 04
Percent Neutral 53 26 66 37 54
χ2 by Gender 3.304 3.490 3.971 1.423 1.116
Female characteristics • 16 out of the original 20 were still classified as typically female, based on the most frequently assigned category. • Three items – loyal, shy, and yielding – were reclassified as gender neutral. • The last previously female characteristic, childlike, has been reclassified as stereotypically male.
Male Characteristics • Only 9 of the original 20 were still classified as typically male. • The other 11 items were recategorized as neutral: acts as a leader, ambitious, analytical, defends beliefs, displays leadership ability, independent, individualistic, strong personality, takes a stand. • The current rendition of a stereotypic male is aggressive, assertive, athletic, competitive, dominant, forceful, makes decisions easily, masculine, risk-taking, and childlike.
Current rendition of a stereotypic male STILL MALE
GAINED from Female
aggressive assertive athletic competitive dominant forceful makes decisions easily • masculine • risk-taking
• childlike
• • • • • • •
Neutral characteristics • 15 out of the original 20 were still classified as neutral. • The remaining five items – conscientious, moody, secretive, sincere, and theatrical – were recategorized as stereotypically female.
Current rendition of the stereotypic female STILL FEMALE
Affectionate Cheerful Compassionate No harsh language Soothe hurt feelings Feminine Gentle Gullible Loves kids Sensitive to others Soft-spoken Tender Understanding Warm
ADDED FROM NEUTRAL
Conscientious Moody Secretive Sincere Theatrical (drama queen?)
Gender differences in the distribution of categorizations • There were nine significant differences, although three of them could have occurred by chance (*p < .05, **p< .01, *** p< .001) • In only two cases did males and females assign a trait to a different category. • Women classified “conceited” as a male characteristic, but men classified it as neutral. • Women classified “helpful” as a female characteristic, but men classified it too as neutral.
Discussion points • Trends toward self-description using M characteristics more often, renders most of M stereotype gender neutral. • If Bem’s 75% were used here, – F stereotype simplifies to “affectionate, compassionate, soothe hurt feelings, feminine, moody, sensitive to others, tender.” – 9 other F traits would drop out. – M simplifies to “aggressive, dominant, forceful, masculine.” Not much of it left.
• Is androgyny still a useful construct? • Yes for marking the time-0 point for social trends.
• Future research: Expression of gender roles, traits, stereotypes within other roles: – spouse, friend, parent, teacher, employer, employee, co-worker, etc.
Bullying in the Counselors’ Working Environment: A Texas Wide Survey of Counselors
A PRESENTATION BY LINDSEY LILES AND KAY MAILANDER
Overview Social Justice Defined Social Justice and Advocacy in the field of
Counseling Social Justice and Power in the workplace Participants Design Results Implications
Definition of social justice Social
justice is the fairness associated with equal treatment of people from all societies regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or mental disability. The act of advocating for those who are disadvantaged or have less power than the general population is also part of social justice It is the belief that all people, from all walks of life, deserve fairness and equity Lee & Hipolito-Delgado, 2006, Hays & Erford, 2010Chang, Hays, &
Milliken, 2009
Counseling Fieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Interest in Subject of Social Justice Counselors
for Social Justice is a division of the American Counseling Association The creation of this division of ACA provides counselors with a place to develop and share ideas and information regarding social justice in their profession Social justice, for counselors, entails fighting against the discrimination and oppression of their clients, and fighting for equitable treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental disability, or gender (Lee & Hipolito-Delgado, 2006).
Counseling Fieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Interest in Subject of Social Justice The
counselorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s advocacy role grew out of the realization that counselors are treating for the negative feelings which come out of being oppressed as a member of a group which is not valued by society at large (Comstock et al., 2008). Counselors actively advocating for social justice for their clients are at an increased risk for burnout and harassment from their peers who disagree with what is being fought for (Chang, Hays & Milliken, 2009).
Power and Justice in the Workplace
Rankism--Fuller defines rankism as â&#x20AC;&#x153;classism in the workplaceâ&#x20AC;? Rankism is a phenomenon which comes directly from inequity, albeit acknowledged inequity, in the workplace. Fuller, 2003
Power and Justice in the Workplace
The most common form of disruptive behavior in the workplace is emotional, such as verbal abuse, bullying, lateral violence (Longo, 2010) The victims of bullying seem to be unable to avoid being victims. (Elledge et al., 2010)
This Survey This study is designed to examine the counseling
work environment. The focus is to determine if, and to what extent, counselors feel bullied in their workplace and their coping mechanisms, as research on the topic is scarce.
This Survey- Participants 600 randomly chosen Licensed Professional Counselors
in Texas All members of Texas Counseling Association Contacted by phone and email 219 responded to an online survey 84% female 67% over 45 years old 52% in an educational setting Years practicing
32% less than five years 18% over 20 years
Survey Design Survey two parts:
Bullying in Workplace Scale
Workplace bullying scale EAPA-T Over the last six months, how often have you been subjected to the
following negative acts at work? Please circle the number that best represents your response to each question over the last six months: Never now and then
once a month
once a week
almost daily
Three questions each section Control and manipulation of the work context Emotional Abuse Professional discredit Role devaluation (Escartin, Rodriguez-Carballeira, Gomez-Benito, & Zapf, 2010)
Survey Design Coping with Discrimination Scale Directions: This is a list of strategies that some people use to deal with their experiences of discrimination. Please respond to the following items as honestly as possible to reflect how much each strategy best describes the ways you cope with discrimination. There are no right or wrong answers. Never Like me
A Little Sometimes Like me Like me
In the discrimination situations,
Education/Advocacy Internalization Drug and Alcohol Use (Did not use) Resistance Detachment
(Wei, Alvarez, Ku, Russell, & Bonett, 2010).
Often Usually Always Like me Like me Like me
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Workplace Bullying - Control and Manipulation 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% I have Been Excluded
50.0%
My Correspondence blocked Things I need altered or destroyed
40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% never
now and then
once a month
once a week
almost daily
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Workplace Bullying - Professional Discredit 90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0% My acheivements have been treated with disdain
50.0%
My professional standing has been attacked 40.0% I have been constantly reminded of my mistakes 30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% never
now and then
once a month
once a week
almost daily
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Workplace Bullying -Devaluation 90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
My responsibilities have been restricted I have been assigned absurd or impossible tasks
40.0%
I have been assigned lower level tasks
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% never
now and then
once a month
once a week
almost daily
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Coping Internalizing 60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
I wonder if I did something to provoke I wonder if I did something to offend
30.0%
I wonder if I did something wrong I believe I may have triggered the incident
20.0% I do not think I caused this to happen (in reverse) 10.0%
0.0% Never like me a little like me
sometimes like me
often like me
usually like me
always like me
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Coping Resistance 80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% I respond by attacking others' beliefs I get into an argument
40.0%
I do not directly challenge the person (R) I try not to fight with the person (R) 30.0%
I directly challenge the person
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% never like me a little like me
sometimes like me
often like me
usually like me
always like me
Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Coping Detachment 80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% I do not talk with others about my feelings I've stopped trying to do anything
40.0%
it's hard for me to seek emotional support I do not have anyone to turn to for support 30.0%
I have no idea what to do
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% never like me a little like me sometimes like me
often like me
usually like me
always like me
Implications
Future research on which setting experiences the most difficulty Support systems for counselors Educating counseling students that self care can include standing up for oneself
References American Association of Critical Care Nurses (2005). AACN Standards for Establishing and Sustaining Healthy Work Environments: A Journey to Excellence. American Journal of Critical Care, 14(3), 187-197. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=607&accno=2005106286 American Counseling Association (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria: VA: Author. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488. Bauman, S., Del Rio, A. (2006). Perservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 (98), 219-231. doi 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219 Boero, M., Caviglia, M., Monteverdi, R., Braida, V., Fabello, M., & Zorzella, L. (2005). Spirituality of health workers: a descriptive study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(8), 915-921. Retrieved from http://0-find.galegroup.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ gtx/start.do?prodId=HRCA&userGroupName=txshracd2593 Bowes, B. (2008). Prescribing a healthy dose of corporate culture. CMA Management, 82(3), 1415. Callaghan, P. (2004). Exercise: a neglected intervention in mental health care?. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 11(4), 476-483. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgibin/refsvc?jid=1166&accno=2004207012 Chang, C., Hays, D., & Milliken, T. (2009). Addressing social justice issues in supervision: A call for client and professional advocacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 28(1), 20-35. doi:10.1080/07325220902855144
Comstock, D. L., Hammer, T. R., Strentzsch, K. C., Parsons, J., & Salazar, G. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 279-287. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=9&sid=8d0c7376-6bf2-4331-9a89-f1b08bd85b63%40sessionmgr11 Day, S. (2007). Healthy, distressed or impaired: What affects counselor wellness?. Counseling Today, 50(1), 39. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnairerevised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673 Elledge, L. C., Cavell, T. A., Ogle, N. T., Malcolm, K. T., Newgent, R. A., & Faith, M. A. (2010). History of peer victimization and childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to school bullying. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 129-141. doi: 10.1037/a0020313 Escartin, J., Rodriguez-Carballeira, A., Gomez-Benito, J., & Zapf, D. (2010). Development and validation of the workplace bullying scale EAPA-T. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10 (3), 519-539. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=8&sid=c98d6 0d8-8f5c-4cd7-a7bb-fb2bb7af477e%40sessionmgr10 Figley, C. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists' chronic lack of self care [SUP 1]. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(11), 1433-1441.
Ford, J. (2009). Contextualizing disruptive behavior in health care as a conflict management challenge. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from, www.mediate.com/pfriendly.cfm?id=4682 Harvey, M. G., Heames, J. T., Richey, R. G., & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying from the playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership and organizational studies, 12(4), 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9608-9 Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. (2005). Social justice and the clash of cultures. Psychological Inquiry, 16(4), 172-175. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1604_06 Hays, D. & Erford, B. (2010). The culturally competent counselor. In J. Johnson , & M. Fossel (Eds.), Developing multicultural counseling competence (pp. 1-31). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Ingram, P. D. (2006). The ups and downs of the workplace. Journal of Extension, 44(3) Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2006june/comm1.shtml Joint Commission (2008). Sentinel event alert: Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from www.jointcommission.org/SentnelEvents/SentinelEventsAlert/sea_40.htm Kesler, K. (1990). Burnout: A multimodal approach to assessment and resolution. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 24(4), 303-311. Lawson, G. (2007). Counselor Wellness and Impairment: A National Survey. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 46(1), 20. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/Publications/Journals.aspx Lee, C. & Hipolito-Delgado, C. (2006). Introduction : Counselors as agents of social justice. In Lee, C. C. (Ed), Counseling for Social Justice 2nd ed (pp3-14). American Counseling Association: Alexandria Va.
Lee, S., Cho, S., Kissinger, D., & Ogle, N. (2010). A Typology of Burnout in Professional Counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), 131-138. Longo, J. (2010). Combating Disruptive Behaviors: Strategies to Promote a Healthy Work Environment. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(1), 3. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgibin/refsvc?jid=1331&accno=2010587454 Longo, J & Sherman, R. O. (2007) Leveling horizontal violence. Nursing Management,38, 3437& 50-51. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdf viewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&bk=1&hid=105&sid=8b8dfb69-fc97-44a2-bc91-684f2891e192%40sessionmgr112 Lowe, G., Schellenberg, G., & Shannon, H. (2003). Correlates of employees' perceptions of a healthy work environment. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17(6), 390-399. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=579&accno=2003127431 Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job andâ&#x20AC;Ś:Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406-433. doi: 10.1080/03637750601024156 MacDermid, J., Geldart, S., Williams, R., Westmorland, M., Lin, C., & Shannon, H. (2008). Work organization and health: A qualitative study of the perception of workers. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 30(3), 241-254. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgibin/refsvc?jid=1232&accno= 2009973394 Macran, S., & Stiles, W. (1999). How does personal therapy affect therapists' practice?. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(4), 419. Magnuson, S., & Norem, K. (2009). Bullies grow up and go to work. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 37(2), 34-51.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: new directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 12(5), 189. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01258. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated (2005). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, New Edition. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. O'Halloran, T., & Linton, J. (2000). Stress on the Job: Self-Care Resources for Counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22(4), 354-364. Pepler, D. J. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,15, 16-20. Richards, K., Campenni, C., & Muse-Burke, J. (2010). Self-care and Well-being in Mental Health Professionals: The Mediating Effects of Self-awareness and Mindfulness. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(3), 247-264. Rollins, J. (2005). A campaign for counselor wellness. Counseling Today, 48(4), 22-42. Schwebel, M., & Coster, J. (1998). Well-functioning in professional psychologists: As program heads see it. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(3), 284-292. doi:10.1037/07357028.29.3.284. Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal well being and educational progress of secondary aged students. Educational and Child Psychology. 12, 81-88. Stewart, T., Gibson Semivan, S., & Schwartz, R. C. ( 2009). The art of advocacy: Strategies for psychotherapists. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,12(2), 54-59. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdf viewer?vid=13&hid=17&sid=5db3b005-9a434d50-9dc7-fc2757513eb6%40sessionmgr14
Toporek, R., Lewis, J., & Crethar, H. (2009). Promoting systemic change through the ACA advocacy competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 260-268. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdfviewer /pdfviewer?vid=21&hid=9&sid=8d0c7376-6bf2-4331-9a89-f1b08bd85b63%40sessionmgr11 Toporek, R., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Social justice in the training of professional psychologists: Moving forward. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(3), 177-182. doi:10.1037/a00198 Walsh, B., & Walsh, S. (2002). Caseload factors and the psychological well-being of community mental health staff. Journal of Mental Health, 11(1), 67-78. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=1138&accno=2002153815 Wei, M., Alvarez, A. N., Ku, T., Russell, D. W., & Bonett, D. G. (2010). Development and validation of a coping with discrimination scale: Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 328â&#x20AC;&#x201C;344. doi:0.1037/a0019969 Young, M., & Lambie, G. (2007). Wellness in school and mental health systems: organizational influences. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 46(1), 98-113. Yu, K., Lee S., & Lee, S. M. (2007). Counselorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; collective self-esteem mediates job dissatisfaction and client relationships. Journal of Employment Counseling (44), 163-172. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.umhblib.umhb.edu/ehost/pdfviewer /pdfviewer?vid=28&hid=9&sid=8d0c7376-6bf2-4331-9a89-f1b08bd85b63%40sessionmgr11
Attitudes Toward Poverty Revisited Charity Perry, CSULA Gretchen Peterson, CSULA K. William Wasson, CSULA Theodore S. Bell, CSULA
Historical Attitudes Toward Poverty â&#x20AC;˘ Attributing individual blame of a person for their state or condition of poverty as their own fault or failure. â&#x20AC;˘ F.D. Rooseveltâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s programs initiated under the New Deal moved to alleviate or ameliorate the worst conditions of individual poverty and address its root causes.
Past Research on Poverty Attitudes • Examination of America’s attitudes toward the poor, and specifically welfare programs show that a majority of Americans in 1969 held poor people responsible for their poverty and were reluctant to support programs aimed at eradicating poverty (Feagin 1972). • Those who blame society are inclined to support these programs, and those who blame the individual are not (Bullock 1999). • Individuals with a more conservative political orientation tend to make more disposition attributions in accounting for poverty and generally possess more negative attitudes toward poverty than less conservative individuals (Wagstaff 1983).
Poverty Defined in Current Study â&#x20AC;˘ The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; therefore, the condition of being poor by the standard guidelines of the government and the culture. â&#x20AC;˘ People are said to be living in poverty if their income and resources are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live.
Different Attitudes Toward Poverty Explanations of Poverty
• Individualistic • Places the responsibility for poverty primarily on the poor themselves. • Structural • Blames poverty on external social and economic forces. • Fatalistic • Bad luck and illness can be among the factors cited as explanations for poverty.
Demographic Indicators of Attitudes Toward Poverty • Age • Previous research found that those over 50 were more likely to make individualistic attributions for poverty than those in youth and early middle age (Feagin 1972).
• Gender • Previous research found that women were more likely to support structuralist explanations for poverty than men (Hunt 1996). • Other research found that individuals view the poor differently based on the gender of the poor individual, generally having more sympathy for poor women than for poor men (Cozzarelli, Tagler and Wilkinson 2002).
The Current Study • Procedure • Self administered surveys related to the causes of poverty over a five year period.
• Survey Instrument • Questions were selected from two previous studies. • Attitudes about the attribution of poverty to the individual (Feagin 1972a,b). • Attitudes about the workplace as a cause of poverty and attitudes towards governmental entitlements (Schwartz & Robinson 1991).
Research Questions â&#x20AC;˘ Are poverty attitudes comprised of component factors that can be validated empirically? â&#x20AC;˘ What are the component factors of poverty attitudes? â&#x20AC;˘ How do age and gender connect to poverty attitudes?
Methods for Current Study Sample • 1, 075 students enrolled in a lower division general education course (Principles of Sociology) • Respondents ranged in age from 13-52 years with an average age of 20.6 • Gender breakdown • 66% Female • 34% Male
Modeling Poverty Attitudes • Confirmatory Factor Analysis • Structural Equation Modeling • Proposed Path Model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Factor Components Factor 1 “Entitlement” poverty is because people are too lazy to work
Factor 2 “Corporate” Factor 3 “Individual” .697 -.100 -.016
Bible says we will always have poor
-.119
-.078
.587
welfare encourages laziness
-.016
.010
.657
.063
.069
.652
-.156
-.062
.478
reason for poverty is low wages
.145
.685
-.031
reason for poverty is that employees not stakeholders
.114
.750
-.019
employees are cheap and replaceable
.194
.701
-.001
no loyalty because companies treat people poorly
.187
.565
.039
-.058
.012
.439
poverty is greed of owners
.025
.596
-.041
right to decent housing
.684
.178
-.149
right to job
.788
.152
-.056
right to medical care
.661
.140
-.124
right to education
.785
.126
-.017
right to food and nutrition
.723
.125
-.107
welfare recipients have more children no welfare for undocumented immigrants
poverty is natural
Component Factors • Factor 1: Entitlement Rights • Factor 2: Corporate Blame • Factor 3: Individual Blame
Structural Equation Modeling â&#x20AC;˘ Used to replicate factor analysis to form the basic measurement model to compare genders.
â&#x20AC;˘ Factors of entitlements, corporate blame and individual blame were assumed underlying dimensions.
Correlated Factor Structure
Proposed Path Model â&#x20AC;˘ Three latent variables with directional links driven by the rating of the entitlements was fit to the data by replacing the correlations among them.
â&#x20AC;˘ The directional link between entitlements and individual factors and the link between entitlements and corporate factors were each significant (as you will see in the next slide).
Proposed Structural Model
Proposed Structural Model • Accounts for gender and age effects on attitudes toward the causes of poverty. • Captures historical observations about attributions of the causes of poverty. • The model has specified the precise nature of gender and age effects on the underlying endogenous variable structure.
Results of Current Study â&#x20AC;˘ Men and women had different views of entitlements. â&#x20AC;˘ Age was a significant factor in blaming the individual.
Connecting to Previous Research â&#x20AC;˘ As previous studies have indicated, (Feagin 1972); older respondents were more likely to make individualistic attributions. â&#x20AC;˘ The current studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s result differ from previous research (Kluegel & Smith 1986 and Schwarts & Robinson 1991) who found no difference in attitudes toward the poor based on gender; and whom concluded that age and gender were not statistically significant when predicting attitudes toward poverty.
Connecting to Previous Research • The current study partially supported previous research (Hunt 1996) which did find gender differences in structuralist explanations for poverty. • The current study extends beyond the individualist/structuralist dichotomy to…
Three Factor Model for Poverty • Individualist (personal blame) • Structuralist (corporate blame) • Rights and Entitlements • By incorporating rights and entitlements into the model, we can look beyond the perceived causes for poverty and examine attitudes toward possible solutions for poverty.
Implementation/Application for Uses of Current Study • Development and application of social policy
• Recent presidential campaign • Academic Settings (advisor, professor, administration)
• Proactive way used to suggest and inform students of campus activities, organizations, or clubs that may influence or provide them with a way to connect with students of similar needs. • Use the exploration to develop or expand resources for cultural competence.
Implementation/Application for Uses of Current Study • Clinical Setting • Greater understanding of attitudes toward poverty will lead to more empathy and solution-focused involvement between clinician and client or community served. • Other settings: How do you apply attitudes toward poverty in your profession?
Test Anxiety Management Efficacy of Desensitization Strategies For Test Anxiety Management
Margaret D. Kasimatis, Ph.D. Carroll University
Carroll University’s Test Anxiety Workshops • Fast facts on Carroll: Est. 1846 Waukesha, WI Liberal arts Presbyterian affiliation 3500 undergrads 65% female, 88% Caucasian • 5 masters & 1 doctorate • • • • • •
• Our workshops: • 7th year • Service • Originally 4 weeks & 75 minute sessions • Currently 4 weeks & 60 minute sessions • Best practices • Next: high school version?
Why focus on test anxiety? • Prevalence: up to 25% of undergraduate students believe their anxiety symptoms cause them to underperform on exams (Ergene 2003; Cizek & Burg, 2006) • Test anxiety & bad experiences with tests are predictive of dropping out of school (Cizek & Burg, 2006) • Anxiety is uncomfortable & we have a number of effective treatments: students do not need to feel helpless
Our subjects • TREATMENT GROUP: 79 self-referred undergraduate students (>90% Caucasian females, average age 20) • WAITLIST COMPARISON GROUP: 26 undergraduates (not random assignment)
Our measures Sarason’s (1978) TAS • 37 items • T/F format • Conceptualizes test anxiety as a trait orientation toward evaluative situations: • Worry (cognitive > physiological) • Test-irrelevant cognitions • Tension (emotionality, affective) • Bodily symptoms (physiological) • Moderate-high validity & reliability coefficients
Spielberger’s STAI (1983) • Two 20-item scales • 4-point Likert ratings • STATE: specific to situation (testing or evaluation) • TRAIT: anxiety proneness (stronger association with test anxiety) • Designed for use with high school & college students • Excellent validity & reliability coefficients
Test anxiety in relation to… State • Spielberger: emotionality associated with physiological arousal yet influenced by cognitive factors • Impacts concentration, attention, & working memory • Highly test anxious students experience more intense state anxiety & stronger arousal during exams • Students often report feeling helpless in relation to uncomfortable symptoms of anxiety
Trait • Sarason: fairly stable predisposition to perceive evaluative situations as threatening (react more intensely as well) • Worry (cognitive > physiological) has strongest negative impact on test preparation as well as test performance • During exams students with high trait anxiety experience more test-irrelevant cognitions that impair focus & performance • Students often perceive their test anxiety as a static personality trait
Broad, mixed findings: • Students with high test anxiety tend to have high trait anxiety & anticipate poor test performance despite often spending more time studying than do less anxious students • Students with high trait anxiety tend to experience more worry cognitions, especially regarding self-criticism & consequences of poor performance • Worry component (cognitive>physiological) is negatively related to achievement (during test & overall GPA) • Emotionality (physiological) is less clearly related to performance (but often focus of distress/feeling helpless) • COGNITIVE FACETS PROBABLY MOST DIRECTLY IMPAIR TEST PERFORMANCE BUT NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE FROM PHYSIOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS
Original Carroll U. Test Anxiety Workshop Four 75 minute sessions with handouts & homework Session 1: demystify anxiety, tips for efficient studying, & yoga-style breathing Session 2: review breathing techniques, add test-taking strategies, & systematic muscle relaxation Session 3: identify cognitive distortions related to tests; cognitive restructuring; desensitization exercise Session 4: personalize it all: preferred interventions, most salient cues & cognitions; practicing desensitization techniques
Anxiety Management: keeping an optimal range
• How? • Efficient test preparation • Informed test-taking strategies • Low-to-moderate anxiety levels
“I’ve gotten over my fear of tests, but now I seem to have developed studying anxiety.”
Study Efficiently & Play Percentages • Study in shorter stretches (45.10.5) • Repetition of limited quantity of information • Group content by patterns & themes • Manipulate info as read notes • Value of rest & stable blood sugar levels • State-dependent learning: caffeine, quiet
• Multiple choice strategies • Structured approach to short essays • Options for performance-based exams (eg. lab or speech) • Trainable skills! Create new habits
Anxiety Management 101: “Know Thyself” • Educate about optimal levels of anxiety (“facilitative”) • Tune into own physical & cognitive symptoms • Give options for management: • Controlled breathing • Muscle relaxation • Cognitive restructuring • Systematic desensitization for internal & external cues
Hypotheses & Results • Hypotheses: • 1. treatment group would show more significant reductions in test, state, & trait anxiety than would waitlist group • 2. trait anxiety would decline more than state anxiety for students receiving treatment • Results supported hypotheses: • 1. students receiving treatment had greater reductions in test, state, & trait anxiety than did waitlisted subjects • 2. trait anxiety did decline more than state anxiety • 3. inconsistent with the hypotheses, the waitlist group showed a significant reduction in trait anxiety
Pre-Test Post-Test Comparisons Variable
Preaverage
Postaverage
Avg. Difference
t-value
Significance
Test Anxiety: Treatment
25.6
17.89
6.514
8.370
p < .0001
Waitlist
29.96
30.04
0.120
0.203
p < .840
State Anxiety: Treatment
39.88
35.86
9.660
3.119
p < .003
Waitlist
57.65
56.58
1.185
0.642
p < .527
Trait Anxiety: Treatment
41.10
36.83
8.577
4.066
p < .0001
Waitlist
50.08
46.54
3.538
3.000
p < .006
70
Average Anxiety Level
60 50 40 Treatment
30 20
Waitlist
10 0 TAS Pre Tas Post State Pre
State Post
Trait Pre Trait Post
Hence, a multimodal strategy • Anxiety is messy but multiple levels of expression = multiple points of intervention • While worry cognitions most clearly impair test performance, physical symptoms distract some students & lead to escalation of anxiety • Desensitization effectively reduces test, trait, and state anxiety in test-anxious college students • Cognitive interventions, relaxation techniques, & supplemental skills training all are evidence-based treatment strategies • Offer a “menu” of skills to expand coping repertoire: increase confidence, reduce symptoms, & improve performance • These skills are learned rapidly & generalize easily
Evolved Carroll U. Test Anxiety Workshop â&#x20AC;˘ Four 60 minute sessions â&#x20AC;˘ Now using CTAS (Cassady & Johnson, 2002): 27 item Likert scale, cognitive focus â&#x20AC;˘ Incorporates expressive writing (Ramirez & Beilock, 2011)
Session 1: demystify anxiety, give tips for efficient studying, teach yoga-style breathing & systematic muscle relaxation Session 2: review breathing techniques, add test-taking strategies, introduce expressive writing to free working memory during tests Session 3: identify cognitive distortions with amplified expressive writing; cognitive restructuring; desensitization exercise Session 4: personalize it all: preferred interventions, most salient cues & cognitions; practicing desensitization techniques Tentative findings: 1. desensitization plus skills training has comparable benefits to expressive writing plus skills training 2. need to sort out relative contributions of elements of intervention but expressive writing may help more with state anxiety
References • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Ahgar, G. (2008). Investigation into consulting group with a cognitive and behavioural approach on the reduction of test anxiety of female students in secondary school in Tehran City. The New Educational Review, 16(3/4), 77-87. Blankenstein, K.R., Flett, G.L., & Watson, M.S. (1992). Coping and academic problem-solving ability in test anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(1), 37-46. Cassady, J.C. & Johnson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295. Cizek, G. & Burgh, S. (2006). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International, 24(3), 313-328. Gambles, D.H. (1995). Treatment outcome in test anxiety research: A review and meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(8-B), 3587. Kondo, D.S. (1997). Strategies for coping with test anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping,10, 203215. Powell, D.H. (2004). Behavioral treatment of debilitating test anxiety among medical students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(8), 853-865. Ramirez, G. & Beilock, S.L. (2011). Writing about testing worries boosts exam performance in the classroom. Science, 331, 211-213. Sarason, I.G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 929-938. Spielberger, C.D. & Vagg, P.R. (1995). Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis. Trent, J.T. & Maxwell, W.A. (1980). State and trait components of test anxiety and their implications for treatment. Psychological Reports, 47, 475-480. Zettle, R.D. (2003). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs. systematic desensitization in treatment of math anxiety. The Psychological Record, 53(2), 197-215.
Questions?
Margaret D. Kasimatis mkasim@carrollu.edu
Developing multicultural awareness among study abroad students through international service learning programming By Lucinda Woodward and Peter Galvin Indiana University Southeast
Background and Literature â&#x20AC;˘ Surveys of student experiences have been conducted in most of the major countries that support study abroad programs The focus of this research, however, has been primarily on student demographic factors and their impact on multicultural awareness, beliefs, and values. (Copper, Telchler, & Carlson, 1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004) â&#x20AC;˘ To date, researchers have neglected the underlying personality dispositions that might impact the integration and processing of a cross cultural experience.
Background and Literature • The question of key interest was, which personality variables were the best predictors of multicultural learning outcomes at the conclusion of the trip? • Assist in future selection, training, and debriefing of study abroad participants as well as in the development of a curriculum sensitive to the interpersonal styles and competencies of the individual participants. • The Big Five Factor model of personality (McCrae and Costa, 1987) was utilized to examine personality variables that might predict multicultural learning outcomes in college students.
Description of the Study • In the current study, a group of 21 undergraduate psychology students (2 men and 13 women submitted complete data sets, mean age =26) participated in a three-week field research project dedicated to assessing the epidemiology of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Ghana, West Africa • Students conducted one-on-one interviews with a diversity of Ghanaian nationals in order to develop an understanding of the prevalence and symptomology of mental health symptoms following exposure to a traumatic stressor • Daily journaling and group discussion charted personal growth • Pre-, post- measures of personality type and cultural attitudes quantitatively assessed change over time across group members • Upon return, students performed course evaluation surveys to assess the efficacy of the program in terms of student learning
Big Five Model of Personality
Hypotheses • Higher scores on the personality factors Openness to Experience, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion would positively correlate to greater learning outcomes, including knowledge, awareness, relationship effectiveness, positive travel experiences, and cultural adaptability. • Outcome Measures: • Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee and van Oudenhoven, 2000) • Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS; Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay & Chandraeker, 2007).
Measures • Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS; Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay & Chandraeker,
2007). A 20-item self-report inventory demonstrates a satisfactory factor structure which is stable across samples, time cultural contexts, and rating sources. Each factor and subdimension of the CQS measures different aspects of the overall capability to function and manage in culturally diverse settings. According to the authors, the internal reliability of the CQS has a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 or higher.
• Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Van der Zee, K. I. and van
Oudenhoven, J. P. , 2000) is a 78-item self-report instrument aimed at measuring multicultural effectiveness. The questionnaire has seven subscales representing Cultural Empathy, Open-mindedness, Emotional Stability, Orientation to Action, Adventurousness/Curiosity, Flexibility, and Extraversion. The authors reported strong psychometric properties including internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity for explicit international interests.
• NEO FFI (McCrae and Costa, 2004). A brief version of the NEO PI-R Five-Factor Inventory
with 60 self-report items items (descriptions of behavior) answered on a five point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The authors reported that the internal consistency of the NEO was high, at: N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90 and that the test retest reliability of the NEO after 3 months was: N= .87, E= .91, O= .86.
Results
• A Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed on independent variables (Big Five personality factors) and dependent variables (scores on the CQS and MPQ). • Emotional stability approached a significant correlation with the cultural adaptation, family relationships, and experience subscales of the MPQ (Pearson’s r = .44, p < .10; r = .48, p < .07; r = .42, p < .10, respectively). • Agreeableness approached significance with the cultural adaptability subscale of the MPQ (Pearson’s r = .45, p < .10 and the knowledge and total scores of the CQS (r = -.49, p < . 07; r = .45, p < .10, respectively).
Learning Outcomes • In qualitative analysis, students consistently reported that they felt they had: • “Gained better insight into myself as a result of study abroad.” • “Increased understanding of other cultures.” • “Increased tolerance of other people and customs.” • “Increased ability to adapt to new situations.” • “Increased knowledge of psychology, education and/or health as a result of this course.”
• Participants unanimously endorsed that they “found the immersion experience more valuable than classroom learning “and that they “would recommend the course to a friend.”
Discussion
â&#x20AC;˘ Only the Big Five factors emotional stability and agreeableness were significantly related to study abroad learning outcomes in college students. â&#x20AC;˘ The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions may impede the benefits of multicultural learning experiences due to the stresses inherent in international travel and adaption to a new culture. â&#x20AC;˘ Adaptability (intrinsic to the factor agreeableness) may moderate accommodation and assimilation of novel experiences in students studying abroad.
Limitations â&#x20AC;˘ First, there is a very small sample size, which may have resulted in low power for personality variables that typically have smaller effect sizes (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg). â&#x20AC;˘ Second, there is a strong selfselection bias in this sample. The data reflects a negative skew with a kurtosis ranging from 4.8-5.7, suggesting a positive, peaked curve.
Future Directions
â&#x20AC;˘ Extend the data collection to a broader sample of students and programs â&#x20AC;˘ Develop screening and pre-departure training programs that will assist international program directors in matching individual students to their optimum international learning environments
Emotional Intelligence Among Black Belts: Predictor of Success Dr. Chris A. Moser, Assistant Professor The College of Education Dr. Cheri Hampton-Farmer, Assistant Professor The College of Liberal Arts
Why study emotional intelligence among black belt martial artists?
Slide Topic
RQ1: Do black belt martial artists possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than the general population?
Slide Topic
RQ2: Are there dimensions of EI that contribute to success of black belt martial artist?
Many factors contribute to oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall success in life.
Emotional Intelligence Goleman (1995) argued, success is based on 20% IQ and 80% other things.
Emotional Intelligence EI distinguishes outstanding performers from average ones.
Emotional Intelligence Ability to identify emotions in self and others.
Study Methodology & Design
Intra-personal Study Methodology & Design Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self-Actualization
Inter-personal Study Methodology & Design Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship
Study Methodology & Design Stress Management Stress Tolerance Impulse Control
Study Methodology & Design Adaptability Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving
Study Methodology & Design
General Mood Optimism Happiness
Martial Arts Those who earn the rank of black belt in the martial arts achieve a high level of success.
Martial Arts values and tenets include: Honesty Integrity Empathy Humility Gentleness
Respect Self-control Courtesy Perseverance Self-improvement
People trained in the martial arts acquire these qualities. People with these qualities will have high levels of EI. Therefore, people trained in the martial arts will have high levels of EI.
Study Methodology & Design • Leadership competencies survey.
• EQ-i:125 – Scientifically validated measurement of EI.
Participant Criteria Must be: â&#x20AC;˘ 21+ years st â&#x20AC;˘ 1 degree black belt in traditional martial arts
Demographics •77 participants •78% male and 22% female •Ages 22 – 68 years (median: 48) •Black belt rank 1st – 9th degree •Involved in martial arts 4 – 62 years
Demographics (continued) Martial arts disciplines represented: •Tae Kwon Do •Karate •Various Other
55% 19% 26%
Method • SPSS • One sample t-test • Compared EQ-i normative sample standard mean with black belt standard mean.
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100 95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Results
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness
TOTAL_EQ Assertiveness INTRAPERSONAL Independence Self Regard Self Actualization Emotional Self Awareness INTERPERSONAL Assertiveness Independence Empathy Self Actualization Social Responsibility INTERPERSONAL Interpersonal Relationship Empathy STRESS_MANAGEMENT Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship Stress Tolerance STRESS_MANAGEMENT Impulse Control Stress Tolerance ADAPTABILITY Impulse Control Reality Testing ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Flexibility Problem Solving Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Optimism Happiness Happiness
Results
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness
TOTAL_EQ Assertiveness INTRAPERSONAL Independence Self Regard Self Actualization Emotional Self Awareness INTERPERSONAL Assertiveness Independence Empathy Self Actualization Social Responsibility INTERPERSONAL Interpersonal Relationship Empathy STRESS_MANAGEMENT Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship Stress Tolerance STRESS_MANAGEMENT Impulse Control Stress Tolerance ADAPTABILITY Impulse Control Reality Testing ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Flexibility Problem Solving Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Optimism Happiness Happiness
Results
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness
TOTAL_EQ Assertiveness INTRAPERSONAL Independence Self Regard Self Actualization Emotional Self Awareness INTERPERSONAL Assertiveness Independence Empathy Self Actualization Social Responsibility INTERPERSONAL Interpersonal Relationship Empathy STRESS_MANAGEMENT Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship Stress Tolerance STRESS_MANAGEMENT Impulse Control Stress Tolerance ADAPTABILITY Impulse Control Reality Testing ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Flexibility Problem Solving Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Optimism Happiness Happiness
Results
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
EQ-i Scales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
TOTAL_EQ
Mean Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Results
Deviation
Interval of the
Difference 106.57 Lower
Std. Deviation t
Sig. (2-
11.079 tailed) df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
TOTAL EQ Black Belt
General Population
106.57
100
EQ-i Scales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
INTRAPERSONAL
Mean Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Deviation
Interval of the
Difference 108.39 Lower
Std. Deviation t
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
108.39
10.229
1.166
105.57
11.373
1.296
107.40 STRESS_MANAGEMENT
12.564
1.432
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
103.90
13.844
1.578
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
103.19
12.097
1.379
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
INTERPERSONAL
Results
ADAPTABILITY GENERAL_MOOD
4.06
9.09
Sig. (2-
10.229 tailed)
103.90 6.07 10.71 2.99
5.205 7.197
8.15
4.299
4.55 10.25 107.55
5.170
104.34 5.27 9.15 .75
7.394
7.04
2.470
-.98 5.14 104.61 .45 5.94
1.353 2.317
76
.000
76
.000
13.844 76 .000 76 .000 11.255
10.669 76 .000 76 .180 11.095 76 .023
COMPOSITE SCORES Black Belt
General Population
108.39 107.55
103.9
100
INTRAPERSONAL
104.61
104.34
100
INTERPERSONAL
100
STRESS MANAGEMENT
100
ADAPTABILITY
100
GENERAL_MOOD
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Self Regard
Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness TOTAL_EQ
Results
INTRAPERSONAL Independence Self Regard Self Actualization Emotional Self Awareness INTERPERSONAL Assertiveness Empathy Independence Self Actualization Social Responsibility INTERPERSONAL Interpersonal Relationship Empathy STRESS_MANAGEMENT Social Responsibility Stress Tolerance Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Impulse Control Stress Tolerance ADAPTABILITY Impulse Control Reality Testing ADAPTABILITY Flexibility Reality Testing Problem Solving Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Optimism Happiness Happiness
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
EQ-i Subscales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Emotional Self Awareness Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Assertiveness
Results
Self Actualization Stress Tolerance
Standard Error Mean Std. Deviation
Interval of the
Difference 107.40 Lower
Std. Deviation t
df
Upper
4.06
9.09
Sig. (2-
12.564 tailed)
106.57
11.079
1.263
108.39
10.229
1.166
105.57
11.373
1.296
107.40
12.564
1.432
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
107.57 6.07 10.71 2.99
5.205 7.197
8.15
4.299
4.55 10.25 107.21
5.170
108.91 5.27 9.15
7.394
76
.000
76
.000
11.625 76 .000 76 .000 8.554
10.836 76 .000
EQ Subscale Scores Black Belt
General Population 108.91
107.57
107.4
100
Emotional Self Awareness
107.21
100
Assertiveness
100
Self Actualization
100
Stress Tolerance
Adult black belt holders in this sample possess a higher overall level of EI than that found in the general population.
Discussion The black belt group scored highest in: • Stress Tolerance (108.91) • Assertiveness (107.57) • Emotional Self Awareness (107.40) • Self Actualization (107.21)
Stress Tolerance The ability to withstand adverse events and stressful situations without â&#x20AC;&#x153;falling apartâ&#x20AC;? by actively and coping with stress.
Stress Tolerance Development in the Martial Arts • Meditation • Physical Activity • Conflict Management
Assertiveness The ability to express feelings, beliefs, and thoughts and defend oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights in a nondestructive manner.
Assertiveness Development in the Martial Arts • Self Confidence • Integrity/Honesty • Respect for Others
Emotional Self Awareness The ability to recognize oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feelings.
Emotional Self Awareness in the Martial Arts • Integration of Mind and Body • Harmony • Focus Inner Energy
Self Actualization The ability to realize oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential capacities.
Self Actualization in the Martial Arts • Goal Attainment • Self Improvement of Mind and Body • Achieving Potential
Study Limitations • Self Selection • High IE levels reported in this study cannot be attributed solely to one’s attainment of a black belt or participation in the martial arts.
Implications/Future Study â&#x20AC;˘ Determine the impact of demographic variables on EI. â&#x20AC;˘ Compared EQ-i black belt scores with successful leaders.
Implications/Future Study â&#x20AC;˘ Development of a new model or framework for professional development.
Adult black belt holders in this sample possess a higher overall level of EI than that found in the general population.
Discussion Adult black belt holders in this sample possess a higher overall level of EI than that found in the general population.
The rationale for conducting a research study on black belt martial artists.
Slide Topic
Slide Topic
The rationale for conducting a research study on black belt martial artists.
Slide Topic
Just as certain EI competencies and attributes contribute to oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effectiveness in life and as a leader, those who reach the level of black belt must also possess certain qualities and attributes that enable them to achieve a high level of success and distinction in their martial art.
EQ-i Scales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
INTRAPERSONAL
Mean Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Self Regard
Results
Deviation
Independence Self Actualization
Difference 108.39 Lower
t
df
Upper
4.06
9.09
Sig. (2-
10.229 tailed)
106.57
11.079
1.263
108.39
10.229
1.166
105.57
11.373
1.296
12.564
1.432
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
103.90
13.844
1.578
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
103.19
12.097
1.379
103.74
14.771
1.683
107.55
11.255
1.283
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
107.40 Emotional Self Awareness
Assertiveness
Interval of the
Std. Deviation
105.57 6.07 10.71 2.99
5.205 7.197
8.15
4.299
4.55 10.25 107.40
5.170
107.57 5.27 9.15 .75
7.394
7.04
2.470
-.98 5.14 106.68 .45 5.94
1.353
.39
2.317
7.09
2.222
4.99 10.10 107.21
5.883
76
.000
76
.000
11.373 76 .000
76 .000 12.564
11.625 76 .000 76 .180 11.163 76 .023 76
.029
76 .000 8.554
EQ-i Scales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
TOTAL_EQ
Mean Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
INTRAPERSONAL
Results
Self Regard
Deviation
Independence Self Actualization
Difference 106.57 Lower
t
df
Upper
4.06
9.09
Sig. (2-
11.079 tailed)
106.57
11.079
1.263
108.39
10.229
1.166
105.57
11.373
1.296
107.40
12.564
1.432
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
8.554
.975
103.90
13.844
1.578
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
103.19
12.097
1.379
103.74
14.771
1.683
107.55
11.255
1.283
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
Emotional Self Awareness 107.21
Assertiveness
Interval of the
Std. Deviation
108.39 6.07 10.71 2.99
5.205 7.197
8.15
4.299
4.55 10.25 105.57
5.170
107.40 5.27 9.15 .75
7.394
7.04
2.470
-.98 5.14 107.57 .45 5.94
1.353
.39
2.317
7.09
2.222
4.99 10.10 106.68
5.883
107.21 1.92 6.76
3.568
76
.000
76
.000
10.229 76 .000 76 .000 11.373
12.564 76 .000 76 .180 11.625 76 .023 76
.029
76 .000 11.163
8.554 76 .001
EQ-i Scales
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100
Mean
95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
INTRAPERSONAL
Mean Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Deviation
Interval of the
Difference 108.39 Lower
Std. Deviation t
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
108.39
10.229
1.166
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
STRESS MANAGEMENT107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93 10.21 107.55
5.715
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75 7.04 104.34
2.470
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39 7.09 104.61
2.222
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
Results
INTERPERSONAL
ADAPTABILITY
GENERAL MOOD
4.06
Sig. (2-
10.229 tailed)
9.09
5.205
6.07 10.71 103.90
7.197
76
.000
76 .000 13.844
76 .000 11.255
76 .016 10.669
76 .029 11.095
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100 95% Confidence
TOTAL_EQ 106.57 Std. INTRAPERSONAL 108.39 Mean Deviation 106.57 TOTAL_EQ Self Regard 105.5711.079 108.39 10.229 INTRAPERSONAL Emotional Self 107.40 105.57 11.373 Self Regard Awareness 107.5712.564 107.40 Emotional Self Awareness 107.57 Assertiveness Assertiveness 106.6811.625 106.68 11.163 Independence Independence 107.21 107.21 8.554 Self Actualization 13.844 INTERPERSONAL Self Actualization 103.90 EQ-i Scales
Results
Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference Lower
t
Sig. (2tailed) df
Upper
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100 95% Confidence
TOTAL_EQ 106.57 Std. INTRAPERSONAL 108.39 Mean Deviation 106.57 TOTAL_EQ Self Regard 105.5711.079 108.39 10.229 INTRAPERSONAL Emotional Self 107.40 105.57 11.373 Self Regard Awareness 107.5712.564 107.40 Emotional Self Awareness 107.57 Assertiveness Assertiveness 106.6811.625 106.68 11.163 Independence Independence 107.21 107.21 8.554 Self Actualization 13.844 INTERPERSONAL Self Actualization 103.90 EQ-i Scales
Results
Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference Lower
t
Sig. (2tailed) df
Upper
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
Data
Black Belt
General Population
108.39 107.55 106.57
104.61
104.34 103.9
100
TOTAL_EQ
100
INTRAPERSONAL
100
INTERPERSONAL
100
STRESS MANAGEMENT
100
ADAPTABILITY
100
GENERAL_MOOD
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100 95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Results
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
One-Sample Test Test Value = 100 95% Confidence
EQ-i Scales
Standard Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
t
Sig. (2tailed)
Std. Mean
TOTAL_EQ INTRAPERSONAL Self Regard Emotional Self Awareness Assertiveness Independence Self Actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS_MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing Flexibility Problem Solving GENERAL_MOOD Optimism Happiness
Results
Deviation
Lower
df
Upper
106.57
11.079
1.263
4.06
9.09
5.205
76
.000
108.39
10.229
1.166
6.07
10.71
7.197
76
.000
105.57
11.373
1.296
2.99
8.15
4.299
76
.000
107.40
12.564
1.432
4.55
10.25
5.170
76
.000
107.57
11.625
1.325
4.93
10.21
5.715
76
.000
106.68
11.163
1.272
4.14
9.21
5.247
76
.000
107.21
8.554
.975
5.27
9.15
7.394
76
.000
103.90
13.844
1.578
.75
7.04
2.470
76
.016
102.08
13.476
1.536
-.98
5.14
1.353
76
.180
103.19
12.097
1.379
.45
5.94
2.317
76
.023
103.74
14.771
1.683
.39
7.09
2.222
76
.029
107.55
11.255
1.283
4.99
10.10
5.883
76
.000
108.91
10.836
1.235
6.45
11.37
7.214
76
.000
103.90
11.478
1.308
1.29
6.50
2.978
76
.004
104.34
10.669
1.216
1.92
6.76
3.568
76
.001
101.84
10.817
1.233
-.61
4.30
1.496
76
.139
103.75
14.365
1.637
.49
7.01
2.293
76
.025
105.56
9.548
1.088
3.39
7.73
5.108
76
.000
104.61
11.095
1.264
2.09
7.13
3.646
76
.000
106.14
9.355
1.066
4.02
8.27
5.762
76
.000
103.12
12.693
1.446
.24
6.00
2.155
76
.034
Discussion The black belt group scored highest in: • Stress Tolerance (108.91) • Assertiveness (107.57) • Emotional Self Awareness (107.40) • Self Actualization (107.21)
Discussion The black belt group scored highest in: • Stress Tolerance (108.91) • Assertiveness (107.57) • Emotional Self Awareness (107.40) • Self Actualization (107.21)
Discussion The black belt group scored highest in: • Stress Tolerance (108.91) • Assertiveness (107.57) • Emotional Self Awareness (107.40) • Self Actualization (107.21)
Parenting Experiences of Some Nobel Laureates
April 19, 2013 Echo Wu, Ph.D. Murray State University
1
What? • A qualitative study interviewing Nobel Prize winners • The main topic is on parenting the laureates’ parents’ parenting • Further questions: concepts of giftedness, intellectual & socialemotional development, various environmental influences, suggestions for parents in general 2
How? • The First Interview: Prof Bill Phillips (NIST-- the National Institute of Standards and Technology), the NP winner in Physics, 1997 • The Second Interview: Prof Norman Ramsey (Harvard -- the NP winner in Physics, 1989 • Further Interviews: Purposely, systematically designed; Email invitation 3
Why? • Highly interesting topic to the researcher & general parents • Relatively unknown area of the Noble laureates • Specific information & implications to parents and practitioners • Personal curiosity as a mother
4
Who? • 20 interviews: 11 personal interviews, 9 phone interviews • 60-90 minutes conversation in general (more are expected) • Today’s presentation: Results of 4 interviews Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, economics, & medicine, age from 50s to 90s • Expected outcomes: Journal articles & books 5
Interviewees • • • • • • • • • •
Bill Phillips (NIST) Norman Ramsey (Harvard) Paul Samuelson (MIT) Ted Haensch (Germany) Robert Solow (MIT) Dudley Herschbach (Harvard) Robert Merton (Harvard) Steven Weinberg (Texas) Yuan T. Lee (Tai Wan) Nicolaas Bloembergen (Arizona) 6
• • • • • • • • • •
Thomas Schelling (Maryland) Kenneth Arrow (Stanford) Frank Wilczek (MIT) Barry Sharpless (Scripps Research Ins.) Roy Glauber (Harvard) Shelly Glashow (Boston U.) Craig Mello (U. Mass Med.) Jim & Sally Mello (Living in VA) Richard Schrock (MIT) John Mather (NASA) 7
Some Laureates
8
About Giftedness • Nature vs. Nurture • Various Factors - Innate ability？ - Effort？ - “Good” family？ - “Good” school” - Good luck? - Training/practice?... 9
About Parenting -- Parenting styles -- Cultural differences -- Some other issues
10
Research Method • Qualitative research -- Narrative approach, personal stories • Procedure -- Interviews: A special group of people with exceptionally high achievement • Data collected -- Interviews -- Document (supplemental) 11
Research Questions • Parenting experiences (their parents) • Influences on childhood development (math, science, language, art, music, sports) • Social-emotional development • Cultural awareness • Parenting beliefs & their own parenting practices • Other aspects (school, mentor, peer…) • Suggestions to parents in general 12
Parenting Experiences of Four Laureates (1) BP (2) NR (3) TH (4) PS
13
Interview with BP
14
• Importance of personal relationships - family, friends, colleagues, students • Relationship with his parents - feeling very secure - high expectations • Family environment - reading habit in early childhood - highly motivated in science by reading biographies - involvement in extra-curricular activities 15
• Concept of giftedness: “I believe that every child is gifted” • Importance of environment: “Those children who are exposed to an encouraging and supportive environment at a young age are far more likely to have their innate abilities come through” • Key to success: Good luck and collaboration with other people
16
Interview with NR
17
• Parents had “remarkable” influence on him in terms of education and achievement • High expectations: “They expected me to work hard, to do my best.” Mother had a Master’s degree; father wanted him to go to West Point Military Academy • Curiosity and the crucial role of thinking: “Think, Think, and Think” 18
• Concept of giftedness: “Giftedness is a mixture” of innate ability and hard work. A combination would be the best “If you are less gifted, but if you concentrate hard and work hare, you can still do very well” • Good luck plus hard work led to four generations of NP winners in one line
19
â&#x20AC;˘ Suggestions to teachers: Giving students certain responsibilities, e.g., taking risks, making certain mistakes â&#x20AC;˘ Advice to parents: Support curiosity in understanding & questioning; encourage children work hard, but leave them opportunities for thinking!
20
Interview with TH
21
• Born and bred in Germany; from a non-academic family background • Support and warmth from home, appreciation of intellectual activities • Great interest and passion in solving problems, exploring the world, and doing experiments since a very young age • Encouraged by a chemistry teacher; benefited from other mentors over the years 22
• Concept of giftedness: Everyone is gifted in some ways • One of the most important thing is to find out one’s true interest • Suggestions to parents & educators: Supporting children to discover the specific area that they really enjoy, and encourage them to be independent
23
Interview with PS • Different childhood compared to the other Nobel laureates • Parents were both intelligent people and encouraged them to read, but were “demanding,” especially his mother • Great memory; highly motivated by his own interests; very high self-confidence - “as if I were born with it!” 24
• Luck: the right area (economics) at the right time (after the Great Depression) • At age 92, still actively working as an academic & a government consultant • Suggestions to parents: - Be loving & permissive parents, and do not try to create “little genius”; - Do not put much pressure on children and leave more freedom for them to achieve 25
Findings Six Themes： • Passion or interest • Parental support • Freedom of choice • Good luck • Reading habit • Mentorship
26
Passion or Interest • All four interviewees have intense interest or passion for math & science • Provided them intrinsic motivation, and led them into the right direction & the fulfillment of their potential • Developed at a very early age: the importance of discovering the initial interests or “sparks” of children 27
Parental Support • Not all four interviewees had strong, positive support & encouragement from parents/family • Yet, sufficient opportunities & appreciation on academic • Warmth, love, & parental involvement in academic development • Activities in non-academic areas, e.g., art, music, sports 28
Freedom of Choice • Parents’ expectations: BP’s mother: physician NR’s father: West Point PS’s parents: lawyer • Sense of freedom or flexibility: - It allowed the laureates to focus on their own interests and to pursue careers different from parents’ choices - It shaped their creativity & capacity of intervention 29
Good luck • Unpredictable & uncontrollable • Interestingly different from the literature (failure - bad luck; success - innate ability) • BP: Lucky enough to have good ideas; PS: right time, right area, right place; NR & TH: wonderful mentors • Implications: Pasteur “Chance favors the prepared mind”; wellprepared over effort & hard work • Modest & humble 30
Reading Habit • All the four interviewees had happy & intense reading experience, either with parents, or by themselves at a young age • Provided them with the interest in exploring the world • Obtain special knowledge & information • Spiral circle: Reading habit -intense interest & passion -- high achievement 31
Mentorship • Positive influence from mentors in schools & universities • Good relationships & collaborations with people • Helped them understand the field, remove obstacles, elevate them to higher levels • May helped motivate & even initiate a passion or interest in any area 32
Implications • Fostering positive, supportive, and flexible parent-child relationship • Being aware of children’s passion & interests • Providing various opportunities & chance • Creating optimal reading environment at home & school • Encouraging hard work, being wellprepare 33
Contact Information Echo Wu, Ph.D. Assistant Professor College of Education Murray State University, KY E-mail: ewu@murraystate.edu Tel: 270-809-2539 Fax: 270-809-3799 http://www.murraystate.edu/centerforgiftedstudies.aspx
34
Thank You! Q & A
35