Relationships between worry and sex differences, social desirability, masculinity, and femininity were explored in this study. Data were obtained from 141 undergraduates who answered a questionnaire containing a worry scale, the Crowne-Marlowe (1964) Social Desirability Scale, the Bem (1974) Sex Role Inventory, the Trait Anxiety scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), and several demographic items. Women reported significantly higher levels of worry than men did, and worry was significantly correlated with lower social desirability and with lower masculinity but not with femininity. However, multiple regression strategies revealed that sex differences in reported worry cannot be accounted for solely by variations in social desirability and masculinity. Also, sex differences in the tendency to worry were not eliminated by statistically controlling for trait anxiety, social desirability, and masculinity simultaneously.

No abstract

The use of factor analysis with behavioral data is examined critically. Although there are good reasons to make wider use of factor analytic techniques in behavioral research, several important pitfalls should be avoided. Samples should be of adequate size, both absolutely and relative to the number of variables analysed. Variables should be reliable and devoid of scoring dependencies. One should not allow the same components to appear in different ratio variables, difference scores and composites. Variables and subjects should be carefully selected to represent a substantive design for the study. Ideally this design should stem from empirically-based, well reasoned theory. Careful thought should be given to the question of the number of factors to extract. Rotation of factors should be based on the model reflected in the design for the study. One should be wary of using mathematical-statistical indices with factor coefficients. The correlation, as such, and the standard error for a correlation, do not have the same properties when applied to arrays of factor coefficients as when used with free-to-vary numbers.

The authors review and integrate certain diverse theories to explain and suggest appropriate interventions for difficulties in socioemotional functioning experienced by many deaf persons. These diverse perspectives include a hierarchical circular systems approach, psychosocial stage theory, social learning theory, and representational models, or evolving expectancies of others. These perspectives, which can facilitate understanding of social behaviors and development and lead to improved interventions, provide background for a 3-level model proposed in the article. The model focuses on the relationship between the deaf person and the proximal social environment. The model's first level takes into account intrapsychic processes such as self-concept; the second highlights reciprocal interactions between the person and the social environment. The third describes the resulting memories and expectancies that develop and evolve and that influence the person's previous intrapsychic thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. These, in turn, affect social interactions, in a recurrent, spiraling fashion. This hierarchical model can be used as a framework for concurrent or sequential interventions with Deaf people.

No abstract