Search results

This chapter uses Sandra Bem’s scholarship to demonstrate the intersections between developmental and social psychological approaches to understanding masculinity and femininity.

To highlight Sandra Bem’s contributions, we examined masculinity and femininity, broadly defined, from a socio-developmental theoretical perspective, conceptualizing gender development as embedded within a socio-historical context.

Our review of the literature illustrates that both age and social contextual features influence femininity and masculinity and more specifically that in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, femininity and masculinity vary depending on the sex (same- vs. other-sex) of those in the social context. Along with demonstrating the current utility and extensions of Sandra Bem’s research, we also emphasize the feminist and social justice applications of her body of work.

Weaknesses in the existing methodology where instruments are designed based on the assumption that masculinity and femininity are stable traits rather than characteristics that vary are discussed. Limitations to research focused on either social or developmental perspectives are highlighted and suggestions for a more integrative approach are provided.

Similar to how Sandra Bem’s work showed that sex and gender need not be linked, research and theory on the developmental and contextual specificity of gender also demonstrate that there is freedom in the expression of gender.

Research in industrial and organizational psychology demonstrates that the regulation of negative emotions in response to both organizational stressors and interpersonal workplace interactions can result in functional and dysfunctional outcomes (Côté, 2005; Diefendorff, Richard, & Yang, 2008). Research on the regulation of negative emotions has additionally been conducted in social psychology, developmental psychology, neuropsychology, health psychology, and clinical psychology. A close reading of this broader literature, however, reveals that the conceptualization and use of the term “emotion regulation” varies within each research field as well as across these fields. The main focus of our chapter is to make sense of the term “emotion regulation” in the workplace by considering its use across a broad range of psychology disciplines. We then develop an overarching theoretical framework using disambiguating terminology to highlight what we argue are the important constructs involved in the process of intrapersonal emotion generation, emotional experience regulation, and emotional expression regulation in the workplace (e.g., emotional intelligence, emotion regulation strategies, emotion expression displays). We anticipate this chapter will enable researchers and industrial and organizational psychologists to identify the conditions under which functional regulation outcomes are more likely to occur and then build interventions around these findings.

While well-being and resilience in the workplace continue to be important areas of research, the role age plays in well-being and resilience at work and associated positive work outcomes is often ignored. In most studies age is simply treated as a control variable. In this chapter, we outline the importance of considering age in well-being and resilience research by focusing on how age may impact both of these variables and drawing on research from both the organizational psychology and developmental psychology literature. Theoretical models of these relationships are put forth, and future research directions are discussed.

During the past decade, the winds and raucous waves of positive psychology have altered the landscape and brought new life to the profession and discipline of psychology. Since Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) proffered the positive psychology manifesto at the turn of the century, an amazing plethora of books, articles, research investigations, grants, awards, and applications for improving human welfare and society at large have emerged (see Donaldson, 2011a). Sheldon, Kashdan, and Steger (2011) fully described this impressive groundswell of positive psychology activity in their recent edited volume on Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward. This rapid growth of scholarly activity has also spawned new professional societies such as the International Association of Positive Psychology (http://www.ippanetwork.org/Home/), scholarly journals including the Journal of Positive Psychology (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17439760.asp) and Journal of Happiness Studies (http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/well-being/journal/10902), and top tier graduate programs such as the Masters of Applied Positive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the MA and PhD programs in Positive Organizational Psychology and Positive Developmental Psychology at Claremont Graduate University. All of these efforts share the desire to better organize and foster the continued growth and impact of positive psychology.

This chapter investigates the ongoing process of academization within the field of educational therapy in Germany, particularly in the context of the introduction of university degrees in integrative educational therapy and the psychology of learning. The introduction of these degrees brought about transformative changes in the professional landscape. Educational therapists holding such degrees often demonstrate a more advanced understanding of their roles, which is underpinned by thorough university education and the legitimizing influence of their academic titles. Prior to the establishment of these degree programs, the field of educational therapy was notably unregulated, devoid of a protected professional title or a specific qualification. This lack of regulation resulted in a proliferation of varied providers, giving rise to what’s known as the “after-school market” phenomenon. This chapter explores the genesis and institutionalization of degree programs in educational therapy as a path toward professionalizing the field. It reveals the crucial role that professional associations along with scientific experts have played in launching these degree programs. Additionally, it discusses the impact of competition among different approaches to educational therapy within this rapidly evolving landscape.

In this chapter, the authors present a conceptual perspective on resilience that is grounded in self-regulation theory, to help address theoretical, empirical, and practical concerns in this domain. Despite the growing popularity of resilience research (see Linnenluecke, 2017), scholars have noted ongoing concerns about conceptual confusion and resulting, paradoxical, stigmatization associated with the label “resilience” (e.g., Adler, 2013; Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, & Klieger, 2016; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). The authors seek to advance this domain via presenting a clarified, theoretically grounded conceptualization that can facilitate unified theoretical advancements, aligned operationalization, research model development, and intervention improvements. Resilience is defined here as continued, self-regulated goal striving (e.g., behavioral and/or psychological) despite adversity (i.e., after goal frustration). This self-regulatory conceptualization of resilience offers theoretically based definitions for the necessary conditions (i.e., adversity and overcoming) and outlines specific characteristics (i.e., unit-centered and dynamic) of resilience, distinguishes resilience from other persistence-related concepts (e.g., grit and hardiness), and provides a framework for understanding the connections (and distinctions) between resilience, performance, and well-being. After presenting this self-regulatory resilience perspective, the authors outline additional paths forward for the domain.

We discuss the development of achievement motivation from the perspective of Eccles and colleagues’ expectancy-value theory (EVT), focusing on the importance of children developing positive expectancies for success and valuing of achievement to help them cope with change and uncertainty. Although research has shown that, overall, children’s expectancies and values decline, recent studies show many different trajectories in the overall pattern. Children’s expectancies and values predict their school performance and choices of which activities to pursue in and out of school, with these relations getting stronger as children get older. When children’s expectancies and values stay more positive, they can better cope with change and uncertainty, such as the increasing difficulty of many school subjects, or broader changes such as immigrating to a new country. Parents can buffer children’s experiences of change and uncertainty by encouraging them to engage in different activities and by providing them opportunities to do so. Parents’ positive beliefs about their children’s abilities and discussing with them the importance of school can moderate the observed decline in children’s ability beliefs and values. For immigrant and minority children, parents’ emphasis on the importance of school and encouragement of the development of a positive sense of their racial/ethnic identity are critical buffers. Positive teacher–child relations also are a strong buffer, although research indicates that immigrant and minority children often have less positive relations with their teachers. We close with a discussion on recent EVT-based intervention research that shows how children’s beliefs and values for different school subjects can be fostered.

Applying sociological and developmental theoretical perspectives to educational policy issues, this study analyzed data from 7,710 children from low-income families in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort. The goal was to examine how much the association between phonics instruction in kindergarten classrooms and children’s reading achievement during the first year of school in the low-income population would depend on whether children had previously attended preschool as well as the socioeconomic composition of their elementary schools. Lagged linear models with a series of sensitivity tests revealed that this association was strongest among children from low-income families who had not attended preschool and then enrolled in socioeconomically disadvantaged elementary schools and among children from low-income families who had attended preschool and then enrolled in socioeconomically advantaged elementary schools. These findings demonstrate how insights into educational inequality can be gained by situating developing children within their proximate ecologies and institutional settings, especially looking to the match between children and their contexts. They are especially relevant to timely policy discussions of early childhood education programs, classroom instructional practices, and school desegregation.