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.

Teams in extreme and disruptive contexts face unique challenges that can undermine coordination and decision-making. In this study, we evaluated how affective differences between team members and team process norms affected the team's decision-making effectiveness.

Teams were placed in a survival simulation where they evaluated how best to maximize the team's survival prospects given scarce resources. We incorporated multisource and multirater (i.e., team, observer, and archival) data to ascertain the impacts of affect asymmetry and team process norms on decision-making effectiveness.

Results suggest that teams with low positive affect asymmetry and low process norms generate the most effective decisions. The least effective team decision performance occurred in teams characterized by high variance in team positive affectivity (high positive affect asymmetry) and low process norms. We found no similar effect for teams with high process norms and no effect for negative affect asymmetry, however, irrespective of team process norms.

These findings support the affect infusion model and extend cognitive resource theory, by highlighting how affect infusion processes and situational constraints influence team decision-making in extreme and disruptive contexts.

In this chapter we develop a conceptual model describing how global teams do more than accomplish discrete tasks, and create “spillover coordination” effects by influencing the amount of work-related direct contact among team members outside the task boundaries of the team. We theorize that spillover coordination is the result of relational and cognitive social capital developed through team interaction. We also propose that the design of the team and the context in which it operates influence the degree to which social capital develops.

We develop a conceptual model including propositions that can be tested empirically. We suggest avenues for future research.

Our model proposes that teams are a more powerful cross-border integration mechanism than originally thought in existing literature in international management and organizational behavior, since they affect social capital that can benefit the broader MNE beyond scope of the task and after the team disbands. Our approach suggests that MNE managers should be mindful of global team spillover effects and intentional in the way they design global teams if those benefits are to be achieved.

Most research on global teams, and teams in general, does not look past the task and time boundary of the team. We expand the view of team effectiveness to encompass those dimensions.

This paper compares alternative estimation procedures for multi-level factor models which imply blocks of zero restrictions on the associated matrix of factor loadings. We suggest a sequential least squares algorithm for minimizing the total sum of squared residuals and a two-step approach based on canonical correlations that are much simpler and faster than Bayesian approaches previously employed in the literature. An additional advantage is that our approaches can be used to estimate more complex multi-level factor structures where the number of levels is greater than two. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the estimators perform well in typical sample sizes encountered in the factor analysis of macroeconomic data sets. We apply the methodologies to study international comovements of business and financial cycles.

The premise that the U.S. Supreme Court never veers too far off from the dominant national political coalition (Dahl, 1957) has become widely accepted among social scientists today. To fulfill that promise, however, the confirmation process for justices must serve as a plebiscite through which the public can ratify or reject future justices based on their views. Unfortunately, modern confirmation hearings have become an exercise in obfuscation, providing little meaningful dialogue on important issues. Because conservative Republican presidents have made the lion's share of appointments in recent times, social conservatives have most often benefited from a process that has severed the link between Supreme Court nominees and the polity they must serve.

Jean Lau Chin, Ed.D., ABPP, is professor at Adelphi University in New York. She has held leadership positions as dean, Adelphi University; Systemwide Dean, California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University; President, CEO Services; executive director, South Cove Community Health Center; and codirector, Thom Child Guidance Clinic. Her work on diversity, leadership, and women's issues has been extensive including a recent Special Issue on Diversity and Leadership in the American Psychologist. Among her many awards for her work is Distinguished Leadership in Education, Organization of Chinese Americans, Long Island.

Behavior problems are common in toddlers and preschoolers. Richman, Stevenson, and Graham (1975) identified difficulties with eating, sleeping, toileting, temper, fears, peer relations, and activity as typical in this young population. While all young children should be expected to experience behavior problems as part of their normal development, an ongoing challenge in the field has been to determine when these “normal” developmental problems rise to the level of being considered “clinical” behavior problems (Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000). For example, when does a two-year-old child's tantrum behavior, a three-year-old's urinary accidents, and a four-year-old's defiance become clinically significant? To answer these questions, clinicians must examine the frequency, intensity, and durability of these difficulties, their potential to cause injury to the child or others, the extent to which they interfere with the child development, and the degree to which they disrupt the lives of their siblings, caregivers, peers, teachers, and others.

Whiteness. We appropriate the word to erase it. We laugh – ha, ha – whiteness. I begin with my experiences as a white, upper-middle class girl raised up in a racist and racialized educational system. This authoethnography revolves around an epiphanic moment resulting from the impact of years of involvement in this system. I look at various ways educational practices that are meant to alleviate pain, inequity, and a legacy of racism can function to allow white people to distance ourselves from the ugliness of privilege, silence criticism, perpetuate inequity, and, ultimately, limit human growth and connection.