No abstract

No abstract

It is shown that the usual interpretation of "sup pressor" effects in a multiple regression equation assumes that the correlations among variables have been generated by a particular structural (causal) model, namely, Conger's (1974) two-factor model. A distinction is drawn between the technical definition of "suppression," which is more fittingly labelled enhancement, and suppression as the appropriate interpretation of a regression equation exhibiting enhancement when that equation has been gen erated by the two-factor model. It is demonstrated that a number of models can generate enhancement but cannot sensibly be interpreted in terms of the measuring, removing, or suppressing of irrelevant or invalid variance. How a regression equation is interpreted thus depends critically on the structural model deemed appropriate.

Many researchers have found evidence that, when only marginal distributions are examined, extraversion is related primarily to positive affect, whereas neuroticism is related primarily to negative affect. Recent findings have suggested that extraversion and neuroticism interact in predicting mood so that marginal relations could be misleading. The present study used extraversion (and its components, sociability and impulsivity) along with neuroticism in regression equations including interactive and curvilinear components to predict measures of positive and negative affect. Results confirm earlier findings that extraversion and neuroticism interact in predicting both positive and negative affect. The interaction pattern was similar to previous findings. Both positive and negative affect were strongly related to extraversion only among neurotic subjects.

The cognitive processes underlying sentencing decisions made by college student subjects in a judicial decision-making experiment were examined. Subjects were asked to follow one of three punishment strategies (retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence). In addition, the type of crime and the physical attractiveness of the offender were systematically varied. Length of recommended prison term, subjects' judgments of seriousness of the crime, likelihood of recidivism, and blame attributed to offender and victim were examined. The pattern of strategy effects on prison term recommendations was generally consistent with that found in other studies involving real judges in their actual cases. Deterrence group sentences were the most severe for all crimes, whereas the rehabilitation group sentences were the least severe for serious crimes only. Surprisingly, the rehabilitation group subjects consistently blamed the victim of the crime more than did the other groups. This finding is discussed with respect to belief in a just world and defensive attribution.The question of what constitutes just, fair, or appropriate treatment of a criminal is among the central ethical and legal questions in any society. Although there exists a great body of literature that addresses the issue, only a small proportion of this literature involves an empirical examination of the factors involved in sentencing decisions. Empirical studies of the sentencing behavior of actual judges have found rather large disparities among judges in sentences for the same crime, but have had difficulty pinpointing the sources of these differences (e.g., Partridge & Eldridge, Note 1). Hogarth's (1971) provocative investigation of the sen-