AimsTo examine the effectiveness of a personality‐targeted intervention program (Adventure trial) delivered by trained teachers to high‐risk (HR) high‐school students on reducing marijuana use and frequency of use.DesignA cluster‐randomized controlled trial.SettingSecondary schools in London, UK.ParticipantsTwenty‐one secondary schools were randomized to intervention (n = 12) or control (n = 9) conditions, encompassing a total of 1038 HR students in the ninth grade [mean (standard deviation) age = 13.7 (0.33) years].InterventionsBrief personality‐targeted interventions to students with one of four HR profiles: anxiety sensitivity, hopelessness, impulsivity and sensation‐seeking.MeasurementsPrimary outcome: marijuana use. Secondary outcome: frequency of use. Assessed using the Reckless Behaviour Questionnaire at intervals of 6 months for 2 years. Personality risk was measured with the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale.FindingsLogistic regression analysis revealed significant intervention effects on cannabis use rates at the 6‐month follow‐up in the intent‐to‐treat sample [odds ratio (OR) = 0.67, P = 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45–1.0] and significant reductions in frequency of use at 12‐ and 18‐month follow‐up (β = –0.14, P ≤ 0.05, 95% CI = –0.6 to –0.01; β = –0.12, P ≤ 0.05, 95% CI = –0.54 to 0.0), but this was not supported in two‐part latent growth models. Subgroup analyses (both logistic and two‐part models) reveal that the sensation‐seeking intervention delayed the onset of cannabis use among sensation seekers (OR = 0.25, β = –0.833, standard error = 0.342, P = 0.015).ConclusionsPersonality‐targeted interventions can be delivered effectively by trained school staff to delay marijuana use onset among a subset of high‐risk teenagers: sensation‐seekers.

Summary In this case study of faculty at a large Canadian research university we examine the extent to which the gender pay gap varies with the formalization of remuneration practices and female representation within units. We estimate the respective contributions to the gender pay gap of base pay, access to the rank of full professor, access to and amounts of market supplements, and Canada Research Chairs. These remuneration components differ in their degree of formalization. We also examine variations in the gender pay gap across departments with different proportions of females. The use of multilevel analysis allows for the estimation of the respective contributions of individual and institutional determinants of pay. Mixed support is found for the first hypothesis – that the magnitude of the gap varies with the degree of formalization in remuneration components. The second hypothesis that, all else being equal, the level of female representation in a given context is negatively related to remuneration is supported. Overall, the results are consistent with continuing female pay disadvantage, even in an ostensibly ‘progressive’ institutional context.

No abstract

This study examines the gender pay gap among university faculty by analyzing gender differences in one component of faculty members’ salaries – “market premiums.” The data were collected during the Fall of 2002 using a survey of faculty at a single Canadian research university. Correspondence analysis and logistic regression analysis were performed in order to identify the characteristics related to the award of market premiums and whether these characteristics account for gender differences. The correspondence analysis produces a two-factor solution in which the second axis clearly opposes faculty who receive market premiums to those who do not. Gender is strongly related to this factor, with the female category on the side of the axis associated with the absence of market premiums. The results of the logistic regression confirm that field of specialization, frequency of external research contracts, faculty members’ values and attitudes towards remuneration and seniority within rank are all related to the award of market premiums, as hypothesized. However, women were still almost three times less likely than men to have been awarded market premiums after controlling for these relationships. Overall, the results suggest that within a collective bargaining context, reindividualization of the pay determination process — notably, the payment of market premiums to faculty — may reopen pay differences by gender.