BackgroundThe college experience is often the first time when young adults live independently and make their own lifestyle choices. These choices affect dietary behaviors, exercise habits, techniques to deal with stress, and decisions on sleep time, all of which direct the trajectory of future health. There is a need for effective strategies that will encourage healthy lifestyle choices in young adults attending college.ObjectiveThis preliminary randomized controlled trial tested the effect of coaching and text messages (short message service, SMS) on self-selected health behaviors in the domains of diet, exercise, stress, and sleep. A second analysis measured the ripple effect of the intervention on health behaviors not specifically selected as a goal by participants.MethodsFull-time students aged 18-30 years were recruited by word of mouth and campuswide advertisements (flyers, posters, mailings, university website) at a small university in western Pennsylvania from January to May 2015. Exclusions included pregnancy, eating disorders, chronic medical diagnoses, and prescription medications other than birth control. Of 60 participants, 30 were randomized to receive a single face-to-face meeting with a health coach to review results of behavioral questionnaires and to set a health behavior goal for the 8-week study period. The face-to-face meeting was followed by SMS text messages designed to encourage achievement of the behavioral goal. A total of 30 control subjects underwent the same health and behavioral assessments at intake and program end but did not receive coaching or SMS text messages.ResultsThe texting app showed that 87.31% (2187/2505) of messages were viewed by intervention participants. Furthermore, 28 of the 30 intervention participants and all 30 control participants provided outcome data. Among intervention participants, 22 of 30 (73%) showed improvement in health behavior goal attainment, with the whole group (n=30) showing a mean improvement of 88% (95% CI 39-136). Mean improvement in any behavioral domains was not seen in the control group. Intervention participants also increased their exercise significantly compared with controls, regardless of their self-selected goal category. The increased exercise was paralleled by significantly lower fasting glucose levels.ConclusionsThe health coaching session plus tailored SMS text messages improved self-selected health behaviors with a modest ripple effect to include unselected health behaviors.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02476604; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02476604 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qAAryS5t)

Two studies examined fifth-and sixth-grade students' perceptions of antisocial and prosocial teasing among peers and potential correlates of individual differences in their tendencies to engage in both forms of teasing. The children were rated as showing a greater tendency to be prosocial teasers than antisocial teasers by both teachers and peers. In addition, the children indicated that they generally experienced and observed prosocial teasing more frequently than antisocial teasing at home and in school. Although boys were perceived to tease in a hostile, antisocial manner to a greater extent than were girls, the evidence for a gender difference in affiliative, prosocial teasing among these children was relatively weak. Additionally, systematic relations were found among ratings of the children's tendencies to engage in antisocial and prosocial teasing with peers, teachers' ratings of their general level of antisocial and prosocial behavior with peers, ratings of the frequency with which they experienced antisocial and prosocial teasing at home and at school, and their attitudes toward antisocial and prosocial teasing.

In two investigations, participants were asked to evaluate eight different young adults (Study 1) and children (Study 2) who had described (a) a situation in which they had offered assistance to another individual and (b) the reason why they had offered the assistance in that situation. Although other-oriented helpers and their motives were generally rated more favorably than self-oriented helpers and their motives, participants' evaluations were found to be influenced by the closeness of the helper-recipient relationship, the type of help provided (i.e., instrumental vs. expressive), and the participants' gender. A similar pattern of responses was found for the undergraduate (Studies 1 and 2) and preadolescent (Study 2) participants.Some researchers, most notably Batson and his associates (e.g., Batson, 1995;Batson et al., 1988;Batson et al., 1997;Batson and Weeks, 1996), have argued that many helpful acts that individuals perform for others are motivated by a desire to provide a positive outcome for the other with little or no regard for oneself. Other researchers, most notably Cialdini and his associates (e.g., Cialdini, 1991;Cialdini et al., 1997;Cialdini and Kenrick, 1976;Cialdini et al., 1987), have argued that a broad range of helpful behaviors are more accurately described as being motivated by an expectation of benefits to the self and/or the avoidance of aversive consequences to the self. Currently, there is no consensus concerning whether certain helping behaviors are best conceptualized as being motivated by other-oriented or self-oriented concerns. Nonetheless, there is general agreement among theorists and researchers that helping behavior that is performed primarily to advance the welfare of another is more socially desirable and morally advanced than helping behavior that is performed primarily to advance the welfare of oneself (e.g., Eisenberg, 1982Eisenberg, , 1986Hoffman, 1989;Krebs and Van Hesteren, 1994).While it might be inferred from "helping" theorists and researchers, as well as from Western philosophers (Hume, 1739(Hume, [1963 Smith, 1759 Smith, [1966), that other-oriented assistance is "better" than (and should be favored over) self-oriented assistance, the relationship between an individual's motivation for providing help and others' evaluation of that individual may not be so clear. In a recent investigation (Barnett et al., 1998), college undergraduates were presented with an individual's self-described motivation for being a professional help-provider (a lawyer in Study 1 and a physician in Study 2) and then were asked about (a) their perceptions of that help-provider and (b) their desire to seek assistance from that help-provider during a hypothetical "time of

Two studies were conducted to assess the relationship between an individual's selfdescribed motivation for being a help-provider (i.e., a lawyer in Study 1 and a physician in Study 2) and college undergraduates' perceptions of, and desire to seek assistance from, that help-provider. The major findings were incongruent with the notion inferred from the helping literature that altruistically motivated help-providers would be consistently evaluated more favorably than, and preferred over, egoistically motivated help-providers. Specifically, whereas the other-oriented help-providers were rated as more likable, honest, and less devious than the self-oriented help-providers, the self-oriented help-providers were rated as more ambitious, competent, and as earning more money than the other-oriented help-providers. Moreover, although the participants' "desire to hire" a particular help-provider was found to be associated with: (1) their perceptions of the help-provider's characteristics (Studies 1 and 2), (2) their own self-reported characteristics (Study 1), and (3) their anticipated affective state prior to seeking assistance (Studies 1 and 2), no clear relation was found in either study between the help-provider's motivation and the participants' desire to seek assistance from that help-provider. In contrast to the ambivalence demonstrated in response to the altruistically and egoistically motivated professional help-providers in Studies 1 and 2, participants in a preliminary study of perceptions of "everyday" helpers demonstrated a clear preference for altruistically motivated assistance (although these participants' evaluations were found to be influenced by the closeness of the relationship between the helper and recipient, the type of help provided, the participants' gender, and the gender of the helper-recipient dyad). Considered together, the pattern of results suggests the broad range of situational and individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of, and reactions to, self-oriented and other-oriented help-providers.Altruism has been conceptualized as a helpful act that is motivated by a desire to provide a positive outcome for another without regard for oneself; in contrast, egoistic helping is defined as prosocial behavior motivated by the expectation of rewards for the self or by the desire to avoid aversive consequences to the self (Batson, 1991(Batson, , 1995Carlo et al., 1991;Eisenberg, 1986;Shaffer, 1994). Despite psychology's emphasis on "human nature" as primarily egoistically motivated (Batson, 1990;Campbell, 1975;Wallach and Wallach, 1983), altruistic, or other-oriented, helping has consistently been regarded more favorably than egoistic, or self-oriented, helping.Western philosophers have argued that helping behaviors stemming from "altruistic feelings" are not only present in humanity but reflect the more positive aspects of

Droppa described Bartel as "a wonderful colleague, a detail-oriented writer, and a very curious researcher." We publish this article with gratitude for Jeff Bartel's scholarly work, and in his memory.This case study describes a process evaluation of a successful academic-community research partnership that measured attitudes about diversity in a southwestern Pennsylvania county. While this is the first case study based on a process evaluation with an outside facilitator, the authors summarize three previous case studies of academic-community research partnerships. In keeping with previous literature, the authors focus on three primary areas: factors that promote partnership success, factors that hinder partnership success, and frameworks for successful partnerships. For each of these three areas, the authors summarize the literature, detail their own experiences, and note ways that their research contributes to knowledge of such partnerships. The authors include lessons learned and suggestions intended to benefit those who engage in similar academic-community relationships.