Urbana University

Abstract: During a 1-sec tachistoscopic exposure, Ss responded with a right or left leverpress to a single target letter from the sets H and K or S and C. The target always appeared directly above the fixation cross. Experimentally varied were the types of noise letters (response compatible or incompatible) flanking the target and the spacing between the letters in the display. In all noise conditions, reaction time (RT) decreased as between-letter spacing increased. However, noise letters of the opposite response set were found to impair RT significantly more than same response set noise, while mixed noise letters belonging to neither set but having set-related features produced intermediate impairment. Differences between two target-alone control conditions, one presented intermixed with noise-condition trials and one presented separately in blocks, gave evidence of a preparatory set on the part of Ss to inhibit responses to the noise letters. It was concluded that S cannot prevent processing of noise letters occurring within about 1 deg of the target due to the nature of processing channel capacity and must inhibit his response until he is able to discriminate exactly which letter is in the target position. This discrimination is more difficult and time consuming at closer spacings, and inhibition is more difficult when noise letters indicate the opposite response from the targe

Abstract: Research on the relation between social information processing and social adjustment in childhood is reviewed and interpreted within the framework of a reformulated model of human performance and social exchange. This reformulation proves to assimilate almost all previous studies and is a useful heuristic device for organizing the field. The review suggests that overwhelming evidence supports the empirical relation between characteristic processing styles and children's social adjustment, with some aspects of processing (e.g., hostile attributional biases, intention cue detection accuracy, response access patterns, and evaluation of response outcomes) likely to be causal of behaviors that lead to social status and other aspects (e.g., perceived self-competence) likely to be responsive to peer status

Abstract: I.BASIC CONCEPTS. 1.Who Uses Tests? And for What Purposes? 2.Varieties of Tests and Test Interpretations. 3.Administering Tests. 4.Scores and Score Conversions. 5.How to Judge Tests: Validation. 6.How to Judge Tests: Reliability and other Qualities. II.TESTS OF ABILITY. 7.General Ability: Appraisal Methods. 8.The Meanings of General Ability. 9.Influences on Intellectual Development. 10.Multiple Abilities and Their Role in Counseling. 11.Personnel Selection. III.MEASURES OF TYPICAL RESPONSE. 12.Interest Inventories. 13.General Problems in Studying Personality. 14.Personality Measurement through Self-Report. 15.Judgments and Systematic Observations. 16.Inferences from Performance.

Abstract: Shaw and McKay's influential theory of community social disorganization has never been directly tested. To address this, a community-level theory that builds on Shaw and McKay's original model is formulated and tested. The general hypothesis is that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption lead to community social disorganization, which, in turn, increases crime and delinquency rates. A community's level of social organization is measured in terms of local friendship networks, control of street-corner teenage peer groups, and prevalence of organizational participation. The model is first tested by analyzing data for 238 localities in Great Britain constructed from a 1982 national survey of 10,905 residents. The model is then replicated on an independent national sample of 11,030 residents of 300 British localities in 1984. Results from both surveys support the theory and show that between-community variations in social disorganization transmit much of the effect of community structural characteristics on rates of both criminal victimization and criminal offending.