|Psi Chi Journal Winter 2012|
PSI CHI JOURNAL
Volume 17.4 | Winter 2012
ABSTRACT: Reviewers are at the heart of the Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research (PCJ). If not for their service, the journal quality would be seriously compromised as would its mission to support the educational and professional development of authors. Reviewers provide an expert evaluation for authors and the journal editor. Through this evaluation the authors learn to strengthen their skills as researchers by specifically receiving feedback on the content of their scholarly arguments, the applicability and accuracy of the methods chosen, and the implications of their work. Reviewers also provide important guidance to the journal editor, also a scientist, who may need support from expert colleagues on content and methods. As I close my first year as Editor in Chief of the Psi Chi Journal, I am more grateful than ever for the role reviewers play in the scientific community. This guidance document is intended to provide support to reviewers by describing the review process, clarifying expectations, and addressing some common challenges.
Paul Scott, Rockhurst University
ABSTRACT: There is a long history of short articles on preparing and reviewing manuscripts (e.g., Bentley et all., 1929; Lovejoy, Revenson & France, 2011). Producing quality manuscript reviews is recognized as an activity requiring time, effort, and skill (Bearinger, 2006; Wu, Nassau, & Drotar, 2010). Articles on reviewing often provide information on the form of the review and the process that generates a thoughtful and constructive review (Neighbors & Lee, 2006). The emphasis of this piece is on the dual functions of a review: to evaluate the manuscript and to help improve the scholarly product (Kaplan, 2005; Roberts, Coverdale, Edenharder, & Louie, 2004).
Cassandra M. Groth, Jon R. Bourn, Lauren Maurer, and Christopher P. Terry, Elmira College
ABSTRACT: The majority of previous social psychological research regarding interpersonal reactions with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals has examined interpersonal prejudice toward members of the LGBT community (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Herek & Capitanio, 1999; Snyder & Uranowitz, 1978). To expand and diversify the research knowledge base, we focused on reactive empathy. One hundred and sixteen college women read a short vignette of a heterosexual, gay/lesbian, or unspecified man or woman who was having a bad day. Participants then completed a reactive empathy scale and a general empathy scale. Results show that college women report more reactive empathy toward heterosexual characters than toward gay men or lesbian characters, F(2, 109) = 8.01, p < .001, np2 = .13, and participants reported significantly higher reactive empathy scores for the lesbian character than the gay male character, t(47) = 1.84, p = .037 (one-tailed), r2 = .08. Findings indicate that gay men or lesbians experiencing negative circumstances may be viewed with less empathy than heterosexual men and women experiencing similar circumstances.
Ariel Levesque, Eastern Connecticut State University
ABSTRACT: This study examined the association between family of origin social and emotional environment and romantic relationship closeness on romantic relationship attachment security. A convenience sample was taken of 52 undergraduate students who had been in a romantic relationship for a minimum of two months. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess how family of origin autonomy and intimacy and romantic relationship closeness (diversity, strength, and frequency) influenced romantic relationship attachment security (avoidance and anxiety). This study used multiple regression analyses to determine that family of origin autonomy was negatively correlated with avoidance t(1) = 4.58, p = .00 and anxiety, t(1) = 3.76, p < .001, partially supporting the hypotheses. Implications, especially in the realm of family and couple counseling, are discussed.
Mollimichelle Cabeldue and Stefanie S. Boswell, University of the Incarnate Word
ABSTRACT: Relationship self-efficacy (RSE) is confidence in one’s ability to support successful relationships. The present study investigated RSE’s relationship with attachment style (secure, anxious, and avoidant), jealousy, self-esteem, and gender. College undergraduates (N = 126) completed the Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale, Adult Attachment Scale, Self-Report Jealousy Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and a demographic questionnaire. RSE was significantly correlated with self-esteem (r = .35), avoidant attachment style (r = -.23), and anxious attachment style (r = -.20). Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that self-esteem and jealousy were the only significant predictors of RSE (R2 = .16, adjusted R2 = .14). Although jealousy and RSE did not have a significant bivariate relationship, a positive relationship emerged after controlling for the other variables. It is possible that jealous attitudes may spur individuals to be more attentive toward their relationship partner; increased focus on the relationship may be associated with increased RSE. The reverse direction of effect, in which RSE contributes to jealousy and self-esteem, remains an alternative plausible explanation of this association.
Alyssa J. Matteucci, Drexel University; Daniel Albohn, Millersville University; Tara M. Stoppa and Wendy Mercier, Eastern University
ABSTRACT: This study examined the effectiveness of a university-based Life Fitness course on college students’ health behavior in terms of the number of hours students spent doing various types of exercise-related activities (moderate activities, hard activities, and very hard activities) before and after the course. Participants were asked to complete a serious of questions regarding daily activity levels and habits both before and after the completion of the course. Results revealed significant increases in the mean number of hours spent on each type of exercise-related activity. Specifically, for moderate activities, there were significant main effects for time, F(1, 187) = 6.70, p = .01, ηp2 = .04, and sex, F(1, 187) = 18.80, p < .001, ηp2 = .09, with increases in these activities across time and men reporting higher mean levels of this activity compared to women. For hard activities, there was a significant time x sex interaction, F(1, 112) = 5.90, p = .03, ηp2 = .04, indicating more dramatic increases for men during this period. For very hard activities, there was a significant main effect for sex, F(1, 112) = 11.40, p < .001, ηp2 = .09, indicating that men reported higher mean levels of these activities relative to women. Findings yield important implications for future research on the relationship between health-promotive intervention and students’ health-related behaviors and the establishment of healthy attitudes and behaviors that persist into adulthood.
Claire E. Cusack, Jennifer L. Hughes, and Rachel E. Cook, Agnes Scott College
ABSTRACT: In prior research, relationship satisfaction has been predominantly researched in a hetero-normative context. This study examines relationship satisfaction in 90 lesbians and 213 heterosexual women. We did not find significant differences of relationship satisfaction, commitment, passion, or intimacy based on sexual orientation. In order to determine whether age, length of relationship, and living with children predicted relationship satisfaction, we ran linear regressions. This model was insignificant for heterosexual women, but length of relationship accounted for 36% of the variance of relationship satisfaction, p = .27. Regression analyses were also conducted to determine whether commitment, passion, and intimacy were predictors of relationship satisfaction. We found that passion and intimacy were predictors of relationship satisfaction for both lesbians and heterosexual women, whereas commitment was not significant. Passion and intimacy accounted for 61% of the variance for heterosexual women, p < .001, and 77% of the variance for lesbians, p < .001. This research is interesting because passion and intimacy predict women’s relationship satisfaction, in both heterosexual and lesbian relationships. Clinical implications can be drawn to examine these factors of a relationship in therapy to increase overall relationship satisfaction, regardless of sexual orientation.