We disagree with Levine et al.'s (2003) conclusion that the 3 self construal scales currently in use have "severe" or "fatal" flaws. We argue that the results of Levine et al.'s meta-analysis and priming studies do not raise problems with the validity of self construal scales, in part, because their results are compatible with theorizing about self construals. We also contend that Levine et al.'s measurement studies do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there are problems with the validity of the scales (e.g., there may be multiple dimensions that form independent and interdependent self construals in second-order factor analyses). We summarize other evidence for the construct validity of self construal scales which indicates that there are theoretically consistent findings across approximately 50 studies using the 3 scales. This would not be possible if there were major problems with the 2-dimensional model of self construals or the scales used to measure them. We conclude that the 2-dimensional model of self construals and the current scales are viable for use in future research. S elf construals have been the subject of research in communication for approximately a decade () conceptualization of independent and interdependent self construals. 1 The independent self construal involves defining the self as unique and separate from others, and the interdependent self construal involves defining the self as embedded in ingroups and interconnected with other members of the ingroups. Markus, Mullally, and Kitayama (1997) argue that these "selfways" are not just different ways of viewing the self, they involve different ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Markus and Kitayama (1991) contend that independence "requires construing oneself as an individual whose behavior is organized and made William B. Gudykunst (Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1977) is a professor of speech communication at California State University, Fullerton. Carmen M. Lee (M.A., California State University, Fullerton, 1996) is a doctoral student in communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. We want to thank Michael Bond and Ron Perry for their comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Purpose To assess psychological effects of the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on United States (US) medical students in clinical training to anticipate sequelae and prepare for future outbreaks. Methods Authors emailed a cross-sectional survey in April-May, 2020 to students in clinical training years at six US medical schools which included validated General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) and Primary Care-PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) screening tools, and asked students about pandemic-related stress and specific concerns. Authors used quantitative and thematic analysis to present results. Results Of 2511 eligible students, 741 responded (29.5%). Most students (84.1%) reported at least “somewhat” increased levels of stress and anxiety related to the pandemic. On the GAD-7, 34.3% showed mild, 16.1% moderate, and 9.5% severe anxiety symptoms, with 39.6% demonstrating no/minimal symptoms. One quarter (25.4%) screened positive for PTSD risk symptoms. Top concerns of students chosen from a pre-populated list included inadequate COVID-19 testing, undiagnosed or asymptomatic spread and racial or other disparities in the pandemic. In thematic analysis, students’ reactions to removal from clinical learning included: understanding the need to conserve PPE (32.2%), a desire to help (27.7%), worry over infectious risk to others (25.4%) and self (21.2%), and lost learning opportunities (22.5%). Female students were significantly more likely to report anxiety and PTSD risk symptoms. Asian students had a greater risk of moderate anxiety and those underrepresented in medicine (UIM) had greater risk of moderate and severe anxiety symptoms compared to white students. Conclusions During the initial peak phase of COVID-19, over 60% of US medical students screened positive for pandemic-related anxiety and one quarter were at risk for PTSD. Female and UIM students were significantly more affected. Medical schools should consider broad support of students, and targeted outreach to female and UIM students.

No abstract

Communication research conducted on European American families may or may not generalize to non-European American families. Our purpose in this article is to present a theoretical model derived from cross-cultural research that can be applied to studying the ways ethnicity influences family communication. We argue that the strength of cultural and ethnic identities and the content of ethnic and cultural identities are important factors that influence how family communication varies within and across ethnic groups. Based on our theoretical arguments, we proffer predictions for future research.Ethnicity involves the cultural practices associated with race, religion, or national background (Gordon, 1964). Because ethnicity is based on cultural practices, there are similarities in studying ethnic and cultural differences in communication. Theoretical approaches to the study of cultural differences in communication, therefore, can be applied to studying ethnic differences in communication. Ethnicity and culture, however, are not the same. The theoretical approaches used to study cultural differences in communication must be modified to study ethnic differences in communication.Our purpose in this article is to summarize a theoretical model from the study of communication across cultures that can be applied to studying family communication across ethnic groups. We also indicate how this model can be adapted to study ethnicity. In the final section, we outline some predictions for how ethnicity influences family communication. LESSONS FROM CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCHThe study of ethnic differences in communication today (e.g., comparing communication in two ethnic groups) is similar to the predominate way cultural differences in communication were studied until the middle of the 1980s (e.g., researchers tended to compare communication in two cultures without explaining why there were similarities or differences in communication in the two cultures; e.g., Barnlund, 1975 ). In the middle of the 1980s, however, cross-cultural researchers began to use dimensions of cultural variability to predict and explain similarities and differences in communication across cultures (e.g., Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986). Dimensions of cultural variability are qualities on which cultures are similar or different that can be linked to similarities or differences in communication (see Gudykunst & Kim, 1997, for a summary of the dimensions of cultural variability that can be used to explain communication across cultures).The dimension of cultural variability that has been used most widely to explain similarities and differences in communication across cultures and that is applicable to studying ethnic family communication is individualism-collectivism (see Triandis, 1995, for a summary of research on individualism-collectivism). In individualistic cultures like the United States, individuals are members of numerous ingroups. Because individuals are members of numerous ingroups, no one ingroup has a large effect on individuals' behavior. Individuals ...

No abstract