Shirin Schludermann

A Revised Paternal Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) Q4: Methodological Study

Summary Male college students (N # 387) completed a revised paternal attitude research instrument (Fathers PARI Q4) and the Marlowe-Crowne (MC) social desirability scale. A week later the same Ss were retested on the PARI Q4, this time with the Edwards social desirability scale. The effects of acquiescence and opposition response bias sets were not significant on the Q4 scales; only the extreme set showed some significant effects. Two major factors obtained through factor analysis were Paternal Dominance (F1) and Male Autonomy (F2). Factor scores showed some significant correlations with the response sets. The test-retest reliabilities of Q4 scales were sufficiently high. Neither the MC nor the Edwards scale significantly correlated with the Q4 scales.

Religiosity, Prosocial Values, and Adjustment among Students in Catholic High Schools in Canada

The present study explored the facilitating function of religious commitment in the lives of adolescents. A total of 369 boys and 372 girls attending Catholic high schools in Canada completed measures of family religion, religiosity, prosocial values, social adjustment (school attitudes and family satisfaction), and personal adjustment (life satisfaction and self-esteem). There were no significant gender differences in family religion, religiosity, social adjustment or personal adjustment. However, girls endorsed prosocial values much more than did boys. Religiosity had strong positive correlations with prosocial values and lesser significant correlations with social adjustment. Religiosity had much higher correlations with prosocial values and social adjustment among boys than among girls. Structural-equation analyses of the total sample, of boys, and of girls supported a path model where family religion fosters adolescentss religiosity, religiosity fosters prosocial values, prosocial values promote social adjustment and social adjustment promotes personal adjustment.

Halstead's studies in the neuropsychology of aging

Pre face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 I. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1.1. Biological m o d e l s for ag ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1 . l . l . C o n c e p t o f ag ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1.1.2. M e c h a n i s m s of a g i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 1.1.3. P a t h o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1.1.4. Phys io logy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 1.2. A g i n g a n d the n e r v o u s sys tem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 1.2.1. A n a t o m i c a l c h a n g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 1.2.2. C h e m i c a l c h a n g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 1.2.3. N e u r o p h y s i o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 1.2.4. Senso ry f u n c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1.2.5. N o r m a l C N S a g i n g a n d b e h a v i o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1.2.6. Senile n e u r o p a t h o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 1.3. A g i n g a n d cogn i t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1.3.1. P s y c h o m o t o r p e r f o r m a n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1.3.2. Pe rcep t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 1.3.3. L e a r n i n g a n d m e m o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1.3.4. T h i n k i n g a n d p r o b l e m solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1.3.5. In te l l igence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1.3.6. Val id i ty o f the b io logica l dec l ine m o d e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 1.3.7. C o g n i t i o n b i o l o g y re la t ionsh ips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1.4. N e u r o p s y c h o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1.4.1. N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s ses smen t o f b r a i n d a m a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1.4.2. N e u r o p s y c h o l o g y a n d a g i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2. R e s e a r c h des ign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.1. The subjec ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.1.1. The execut ive s a m p l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.1.2. The neu ro log ica l s amp le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.2, The m e a s u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.2.1. The H a l s t e a d Ba t t e ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.2.2. The phys io log ica l va r i ab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Fear of Rejection versus Religious Commitment as Predictors of Adjustment Among Reformed and Evangelical College Students in Canada

The contradictory findings about the (positive or negative) associations between religion and adjustment suggest that different aspects of religion might have different effects. A total of 160 men and 283 women attending two faith-affirming colleges in Canada completed measures of fear of rejection (by God and church members), religiosity, prosocial attitudes, social adjustment (work orientation, school attitudes), and personal adjustment (life satisfaction, self-esteem). Fear of rejection was found to be predictive of lower religious commitment and of poor social and personal adjustment. In contrast, religious commitment was found to be predictive of prosocial attitudes and of good adjustment. Religious commitment had much higher correlations with prosocial values and adjustment among men than among women. Regression analyses indicated that fear of rejection was a strong predictor of poor adjustment among religious persons.

Filipino Adolescents' Parental Socialization for Academic Achievement in the United States.

Different parental socialization practices tend to predict the academic achievement of European- and Asian-American adolescents. This study explored the processes whereby parental socialization practices lead to Filipino adolescents’ academic achievement. A sample of Filipino students from San Francisco (N = 535) of both genders (ages 11-19) completed questionnaire measures of a proposed structural equation model with the causal sequence: authoritative academic socialization, importance of family reputation, attribution of success, student involvement in studies and grade-point average (GPA). Structural equation analyses supported the hypothesized model with GPA as the dependent variable: Family reputation and internal attribution were found to mediate the relation between authoritative parenting and GPA.

A Methodological Study of a Revised Maternal Attitude Research Instrument: Mother's Pari Q4

Summary Female college students (N = 425) completed a Mothers form of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI Q4) and the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale (MC). A week later the same Ss completed Q4 and the Edwards social desirability scale. Test-retest reliabilities of Q4 scales ranged from .52 to .81. Q4 scales were minimally affected by acquiescence and opposition sets but showed a significant extreme set. Factor analysis of Q4 scales yielded two major factors: Authoritarian Control and Family Disharmony. The Edwards scale had near zero correlation with all Q4 scales. The MC scale had significant correlations with five Q4 scales of the Family Disharmony factor.

Response Set Analysis of Mother's Form of Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI)

Summary Female college students (N = 293) completed an unreversed (Q1) and a reversed (Q2) form of the Mothers Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI). By comparison of answers on the two forms, three response sets were calculated: acquiescence, opposition, and extreme sets. The acquiescence and opposition sets showed substantial correlation with Ql scales, and the extreme set correlated substantially with Q2 scales. Factor analysis corroborated scale analyses. The investigators suggested a method of developing a new Mothers PARI (Q4) which would minimize acquiescence and opposition sets by selecting appropriate Q1 and Q2 scales.