Pub Date : 2012-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612457647
Edward Maibach
{"title":"Knowing Our Options for Setting the Record Straight, When Doing So Is Particularly Important.","authors":"Edward Maibach","doi":"10.1177/1529100612457647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612457647","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 3","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612457647","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018
Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker, Colleen M Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, John Cook
The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.
{"title":"Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.","authors":"Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker, Colleen M Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, John Cook","doi":"10.1177/1529100612451018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns. </p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 3","pages":"106-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612451018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-06-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612437320
Paul W Thayer
{"title":"Commentary on The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice.","authors":"Paul W Thayer","doi":"10.1177/1529100612437320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612437320","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 2","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612437320","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-06-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612436661
Eduardo Salas, Scott I Tannenbaum, Kurt Kraiger, Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch
Organizations in the United States alone spend billions on training each year. These training and development activities allow organizations to adapt, compete, excel, innovate, produce, be safe, improve service, and reach goals. Training has successfully been used to reduce errors in such high-risk settings as emergency rooms, aviation, and the military. However, training is also important in more conventional organizations. These organizations understand that training helps them to remain competitive by continually educating their workforce. They understand that investing in their employees yields greater results. However, training is not as intuitive as it may seem. There is a science of training that shows that there is a right way and a wrong way to design, deliver, and implement a training program. The research on training clearly shows two things: (a) training works, and (b) the way training is designed, delivered, and implemented matters. This article aims to explain why training is important and how to use training appropriately. Using the training literature as a guide, we explain what training is, why it is important, and provide recommendations for implementing a training program in an organization. In particular, we argue that training is a systematic process, and we explain what matters before, during, and after training. Steps to take at each of these three time periods are listed and described and are summarized in a checklist for ease of use. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both leaders and policymakers and an exploration of issues that may come up when deciding to implement a training program. Furthermore, we include key questions that executives and policymakers should ask about the design, delivery, or implementation of a training program. Finally, we consider future research that is important in this area, including some still unanswered questions and room for development in this evolving field. Language: en
{"title":"The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice.","authors":"Eduardo Salas, Scott I Tannenbaum, Kurt Kraiger, Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch","doi":"10.1177/1529100612436661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations in the United States alone spend billions on training each year. These training and development activities allow organizations to adapt, compete, excel, innovate, produce, be safe, improve service, and reach goals. Training has successfully been used to reduce errors in such high-risk settings as emergency rooms, aviation, and the military. However, training is also important in more conventional organizations. These organizations understand that training helps them to remain competitive by continually educating their workforce. They understand that investing in their employees yields greater results. However, training is not as intuitive as it may seem. There is a science of training that shows that there is a right way and a wrong way to design, deliver, and implement a training program. The research on training clearly shows two things: (a) training works, and (b) the way training is designed, delivered, and implemented matters. This article aims to explain why training is important and how to use training appropriately. Using the training literature as a guide, we explain what training is, why it is important, and provide recommendations for implementing a training program in an organization. In particular, we argue that training is a systematic process, and we explain what matters before, during, and after training. Steps to take at each of these three time periods are listed and described and are summarized in a checklist for ease of use. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both leaders and policymakers and an exploration of issues that may come up when deciding to implement a training program. Furthermore, we include key questions that executives and policymakers should ask about the design, delivery, or implementation of a training program. Finally, we consider future research that is important in this area, including some still unanswered questions and room for development in this evolving field. Language: en","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 2","pages":"74-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612436661","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612436522
Eli J Finkel, Paul W Eastwick, Benjamin R Karney, Harry T Reis, Susan Sprecher
Many of us enter the dating pool looking for that special someone, but finding a romantic partner can be difficult. With the rise of the digital age, it is no surprise that people have flocked to the Internet as a way to take control of their dating lives and find their “soulmate.” But is online dating essentially different than conventional dating, and does it promote better romantic outcomes? In this new report, Eli J. Finkel (Northwestern University), Paul W. Eastwick (Texas A & M University), Benjamin R. Karney (UCLA), Harry T. Reis (University of Rochester), and Susan Sprecher (Illinois State University) take a comprehensive look at the access, communication, and matching services provided by online dating sites.
{"title":"Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science.","authors":"Eli J Finkel, Paul W Eastwick, Benjamin R Karney, Harry T Reis, Susan Sprecher","doi":"10.1177/1529100612436522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522","url":null,"abstract":"Many of us enter the dating pool looking for that special someone, but finding a romantic partner can be difficult. With the rise of the digital age, it is no surprise that people have flocked to the Internet as a way to take control of their dating lives and find their “soulmate.” But is online dating essentially different than conventional dating, and does it promote better romantic outcomes? In this new report, Eli J. Finkel (Northwestern University), Paul W. Eastwick (Texas A & M University), Benjamin R. Karney (UCLA), Harry T. Reis (University of Rochester), and Susan Sprecher (Illinois State University) take a comprehensive look at the access, communication, and matching services provided by online dating sites.","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 1","pages":"3-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612436522","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100612438173
Arthur Aron
Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, and Sprecher (2012, this issue) have provided a remarkably comprehensive, thoughtful, scholarly, and timely monograph. It is also extremely important. As the data they cite show, online dating, particularly in developed countries, already accounts for a substantial proportion of the initiation of romantic relationships—a proportion growing at a rate suggesting it may soon account for the majority of such meetings. Thus, online dating is significant as a major social phenomenon. More crucially, the quality of our close relationships is the single biggest contributor to personal well-being and one of the largest contributors to health and longevity. Thus, understanding a phenomenon that is changing the landscape for the formation of such relationships bears on fundamental issues in human life. (As an aside, this monograph also contributes to the basic science of relationships by offering a wonderfully thorough and up-to-date review of the research literature on key factors in romantic attraction and on the predictors of relationship success.) Frankly, although my original intention was a quick read while waiting for the take off of a plane I was on, I found myself so engaged that by the time I had read it (and often reread sections while making a zillion little notes), the pilot was announcing it was time to prepare for landing. Several conclusions, all well supported, from their review stand out about online dating as it currently exists. First, it has significant benefits: increased opportunities to meet potential partners, minimally threatening contexts for initiating relationships, and the possibility of “omitting from the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in gen
{"title":"Online Dating: The Current Status-and Beyond.","authors":"Arthur Aron","doi":"10.1177/1529100612438173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612438173","url":null,"abstract":"Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, and Sprecher (2012, this issue) have provided a remarkably comprehensive, thoughtful, scholarly, and timely monograph. It is also extremely important. As the data they cite show, online dating, particularly in developed countries, already accounts for a substantial proportion of the initiation of romantic relationships—a proportion growing at a rate suggesting it may soon account for the majority of such meetings. Thus, online dating is significant as a major social phenomenon. More crucially, the quality of our close relationships is the single biggest contributor to personal well-being and one of the largest contributors to health and longevity. Thus, understanding a phenomenon that is changing the landscape for the formation of such relationships bears on fundamental issues in human life. (As an aside, this monograph also contributes to the basic science of relationships by offering a wonderfully thorough and up-to-date review of the research literature on key factors in romantic attraction and on the predictors of relationship success.) Frankly, although my original intention was a quick read while waiting for the take off of a plane I was on, I found myself so engaged that by the time I had read it (and often reread sections while making a zillion little notes), the pilot was announcing it was time to prepare for landing. Several conclusions, all well supported, from their review stand out about online dating as it currently exists. First, it has significant benefits: increased opportunities to meet potential partners, minimally threatening contexts for initiating relationships, and the possibility of “omitting from the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in gen","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612438173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100611429679
Don C Fowles
It is not impossible that there is some value in making diagnoses of psychopathy in a forensic context, but this review ( Skeem, et al; doi: 10.1177/1529100611426706 ) should give everyone pause until research has actually established the validity of such applications. If in fact the construct of psychopathy does not have important predictive value, it is morally dubious to make important decisions on the basis of the diagnosis. Language: en
{"title":"Current Scientific Views of Psychopathy.","authors":"Don C Fowles","doi":"10.1177/1529100611429679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611429679","url":null,"abstract":"It is not impossible that there is some value in making diagnoses of psychopathy in a forensic context, but this review ( Skeem, et al; doi: 10.1177/1529100611426706 ) should give everyone pause until research has actually established the validity of such applications. If in fact the construct of psychopathy does not have important predictive value, it is morally dubious to make important decisions on the basis of the diagnosis. Language: en","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 3","pages":"93-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611429679","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34279762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100611426706
Jennifer L Skeem, Devon L L Polaschek, Christopher J Patrick, Scott O Lilienfeld
Few psychological concepts evoke simultaneously as much fascination and misunderstanding as psychopathic personality, or psychopathy. Typically, individuals with psychopathy are misconceived as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity and as inalterably dangerous. Popular portrayals of "psychopaths" are diverse and conflicting, ranging from uncommonly impulsive and violent criminal offenders to corporate figures who callously and skillfully manuever their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder. Despite this diversity of perspectives, a single well- validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; 2003), has come to dominate clinical and legal practice over recent years. The items of the PCL-R cover two basic content domains--an interpersonal-affective domain that encompasses core traits such as callousness and manipulativeness and an antisocial domain that entails disinhibition and chronic antisocial behavior. In most Western countries, the PCL-R and its derivatives are routinely applied to inform legal decisions about criminal offenders that hinge upon issues of dangerousness and treatability. In fact, clinicians in many cases choose the PCL-R over other, purpose-built risk-assessment tools to inform their opinions about what sentence offenders should receive, whether they should be indefinitely incarcerated as a "dangerous offender" or "sexually violent predator," or whether they should be transferred from juvenile to adult court. The PCL-R has played an extraordinarily generative role in research and practice over the past three decades--so much so, that concerns have been raised that the measure has become equated in many minds with the psychopathy construct itself (Skeem & Cooke 2010a). Equating a measure with a construct may impede scientific progress because it disregards the basic principle that measures always imperfectly operationalize constructs and that our understanding of a construct is ever-evolving (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In virtually any domain, the construct-validation process is an incremental one that entails shifts in conceptualization and measurement at successive points in the process of clarifying the nature and boundaries of a hypothetical entity. Despite the predominance of the PCL-R measurement model in recent years, vigorous scientific debates have continued regarding what psychopathy is and what it is not. Should adaptive, positive-adjustment features (on one hand) and criminal and antisocial behaviors (on the other) be considered essential features of the construct? Are anxious and emotionally reactive people that are identified as psychopaths by the PCL-R and other measures truly psychopathic? More fundamentally, is psychopathy a unitary entity (i.e., a global syndrome with a discrete underlying cause), or is it rather a configuration of several distinguishable, but intersecting trait dimensions? Although these and other controversies remain unresolved, theory
{"title":"Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy.","authors":"Jennifer L Skeem, Devon L L Polaschek, Christopher J Patrick, Scott O Lilienfeld","doi":"10.1177/1529100611426706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706","url":null,"abstract":"Few psychological concepts evoke simultaneously as much fascination and misunderstanding as psychopathic personality, or psychopathy. Typically, individuals with psychopathy are misconceived as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity and as inalterably dangerous. Popular portrayals of \"psychopaths\" are diverse and conflicting, ranging from uncommonly impulsive and violent criminal offenders to corporate figures who callously and skillfully manuever their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder. Despite this diversity of perspectives, a single well- validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; 2003), has come to dominate clinical and legal practice over recent years. The items of the PCL-R cover two basic content domains--an interpersonal-affective domain that encompasses core traits such as callousness and manipulativeness and an antisocial domain that entails disinhibition and chronic antisocial behavior. In most Western countries, the PCL-R and its derivatives are routinely applied to inform legal decisions about criminal offenders that hinge upon issues of dangerousness and treatability. In fact, clinicians in many cases choose the PCL-R over other, purpose-built risk-assessment tools to inform their opinions about what sentence offenders should receive, whether they should be indefinitely incarcerated as a \"dangerous offender\" or \"sexually violent predator,\" or whether they should be transferred from juvenile to adult court. The PCL-R has played an extraordinarily generative role in research and practice over the past three decades--so much so, that concerns have been raised that the measure has become equated in many minds with the psychopathy construct itself (Skeem & Cooke 2010a). Equating a measure with a construct may impede scientific progress because it disregards the basic principle that measures always imperfectly operationalize constructs and that our understanding of a construct is ever-evolving (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In virtually any domain, the construct-validation process is an incremental one that entails shifts in conceptualization and measurement at successive points in the process of clarifying the nature and boundaries of a hypothetical entity. Despite the predominance of the PCL-R measurement model in recent years, vigorous scientific debates have continued regarding what psychopathy is and what it is not. Should adaptive, positive-adjustment features (on one hand) and criminal and antisocial behaviors (on the other) be considered essential features of the construct? Are anxious and emotionally reactive people that are identified as psychopaths by the PCL-R and other measures truly psychopathic? More fundamentally, is psychopathy a unitary entity (i.e., a global syndrome with a discrete underlying cause), or is it rather a configuration of several distinguishable, but intersecting trait dimensions? Although these and other controversies remain unresolved, theory","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 3","pages":"95-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611426706","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34279763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-08-01Epub Date: 2011-10-20DOI: 10.1177/1529100611415351
Joseph A Durlak
It is well recognized that practice far exceeds research in the social services. For a variety of reasons, some interventions are so appealing that they become very popular and proliferate in many communities despite the absence of careful documentation of their impact. Examples of such efforts in the field of youth services include therapeutic camps, after-school programs, service learning, tutoring, and mentoring. If one includes the many unevaluated school-based educational and psychosocial programs, then each year tens of millions of youth are exposed to interventions of one kind or another whose value is unknown. This is not to say that popular, established programs are without merit; researchers do not have a monopoly on good ideas and can learn from educators, clinical practitioners, and child advocates of all stripes. Among the many youth programs in existence that have not been subjected to any outcome evaluations, some are probably beneficial while others probably have little or no demonstrable positive effect—but a few might be harmful, at least to some portion of their participants. It is essential to learn which programs fall into which of these categories. The wise use of available resources from a public health and policy perspective requires credible answers to at least four fundamental questions: (a) how much impact do programs have; (b) in what ways do participants change; (c) what characteristics of the participants, programs, or their evaluations are associated with more desirable results; and, (d) do programs inadvertently have harmful effects? Notice that the first question is not whether programs achieve statistical significance at some conventional probability level; we are now beyond that basic criterion. Well-done meta-analyses can now tell us not only about the statistical significance of change but also something about its magnitude—which can assist policy makers, funders, and administrators in deciding which programs to support. David DuBois and Jean Rhodes are widely recognized experts on mentoring, and in their article they have teamed with a previous collaborator (Jeffrey Valentine) and others (Nelson Portillo and Naida Silverthorn) to provide an up-todate systematic review of mentoring programs (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011, this issue). These authors are to be applauded for addressing the four fundamental questions noted above (as well as several others) in a careful, defensible, and systematic way in their article. Among their major conclusions is that mentoring programs can be successful interventions that lead to positive changes in youths’ behaviors, attitudes, and academic performance. Most important, they place the magnitude of change achieved in different outcome areas in context by comparing them to changes of similar magnitude obtained by other psychosocial programs for young people. In doing so, mentoring is placed alongside other effective interventions for youth. Another ve
{"title":"Are Mentoring Programs a Worthwhile Social Investment?","authors":"Joseph A Durlak","doi":"10.1177/1529100611415351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611415351","url":null,"abstract":"It is well recognized that practice far exceeds research in the social services. For a variety of reasons, some interventions are so appealing that they become very popular and proliferate in many communities despite the absence of careful documentation of their impact. Examples of such efforts in the field of youth services include therapeutic camps, after-school programs, service learning, tutoring, and mentoring. If one includes the many unevaluated school-based educational and psychosocial programs, then each year tens of millions of youth are exposed to interventions of one kind or another whose value is unknown. This is not to say that popular, established programs are without merit; researchers do not have a monopoly on good ideas and can learn from educators, clinical practitioners, and child advocates of all stripes. Among the many youth programs in existence that have not been subjected to any outcome evaluations, some are probably beneficial while others probably have little or no demonstrable positive effect—but a few might be harmful, at least to some portion of their participants. It is essential to learn which programs fall into which of these categories. The wise use of available resources from a public health and policy perspective requires credible answers to at least four fundamental questions: (a) how much impact do programs have; (b) in what ways do participants change; (c) what characteristics of the participants, programs, or their evaluations are associated with more desirable results; and, (d) do programs inadvertently have harmful effects? Notice that the first question is not whether programs achieve statistical significance at some conventional probability level; we are now beyond that basic criterion. Well-done meta-analyses can now tell us not only about the statistical significance of change but also something about its magnitude—which can assist policy makers, funders, and administrators in deciding which programs to support. David DuBois and Jean Rhodes are widely recognized experts on mentoring, and in their article they have teamed with a previous collaborator (Jeffrey Valentine) and others (Nelson Portillo and Naida Silverthorn) to provide an up-todate systematic review of mentoring programs (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011, this issue). These authors are to be applauded for addressing the four fundamental questions noted above (as well as several others) in a careful, defensible, and systematic way in their article. Among their major conclusions is that mentoring programs can be successful interventions that lead to positive changes in youths’ behaviors, attitudes, and academic performance. Most important, they place the magnitude of change achieved in different outcome areas in context by comparing them to changes of similar magnitude obtained by other psychosocial programs for young people. In doing so, mentoring is placed alongside other effective interventions for youth. Another ve","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 2","pages":"55-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611415351","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33898384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100611414806
David L DuBois, Nelson Portillo, Jean E Rhodes, Naida Silverthorn, Jeffrey C Valentine
The current popularity of mentoring programs notwithstanding, questions remain about their typical effectiveness as well as the conditions required for them to achieve optimal positive outcomes for participating youth. In this report, we use the technique of meta-analysis (i.e., aggregating findings across multiple studies) to address these questions. As backdrop for our analysis, we begin with an overview of recent trends in youth mentoring practice, findings from prior research, and a developmental model of mentoring relationships and their potential effects on young people. Language: en
{"title":"How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence.","authors":"David L DuBois, Nelson Portillo, Jean E Rhodes, Naida Silverthorn, Jeffrey C Valentine","doi":"10.1177/1529100611414806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611414806","url":null,"abstract":"The current popularity of mentoring programs notwithstanding, questions remain about their typical effectiveness as well as the conditions required for them to achieve optimal positive outcomes for participating youth. In this report, we use the technique of meta-analysis (i.e., aggregating findings across multiple studies) to address these questions. As backdrop for our analysis, we begin with an overview of recent trends in youth mentoring practice, findings from prior research, and a developmental model of mentoring relationships and their potential effects on young people. Language: en","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 2","pages":"57-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611414806","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33898385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号