Social Coping by Masking? Parental Support and Peer Victimization as Mediators of the Relationship Between Depressive Symptoms and Expressive Suppression in Adolescents

Expressive suppression is regarded as a generally ineffective emotion regulation strategy and appears to be associated with the development of depressive symptoms among adolescents. However, the mechanisms linking suppression to depressive symptoms are not well understood. The main aim of this study was to examine two potential mediators of the prospective relationship from depressive symptoms to expressive suppression among adolescents: parental support and peer victimization. Structural equation modelling was used to construct a three-wave cross-lagged model (n?=?2,051 adolescents, 48.5?% female, at baseline; 1,465 with data at all three time points) with all possible longitudinal linkages. Depressive symptoms preceded decreases in perceived parental support 1?year later. Decreases in parental support mediated the relationship between depressive symptoms and increases in expressive suppression over a 2-year period. Multi-group analyses show that the mediation model tested was significant for girls, but not for boys. No evidence for other mediating models was found. Although initial suppression preceded increases in depressive symptoms 1?year later, we did not find any evidence for the reversed link from suppression to depressive symptoms. Clear evidence for a reciprocal relationship between depressive symptoms and parental support was found. However, only limited and inconsistent support was found for a reciprocal relationship between depressive symptoms and peer victimization. Finally, although some evidence for a unidirectional relationship from parental support to increases in suppression was found, no significant prospective relationship was found between peer victimization and suppression. The implications of our clear results for parental support, and mostly lacking results for peer victimization, are discussed.     

The Electoral College and the Idea of Federal Democracy

On July 22, 1977, Martin Diamond spent the last morning of hislife moving to Washington, D.C., and testifying before the ConstitutionalSubcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the need tomaintain the Electoral College. That testimony, reprinted infull below, lasted approximately 35 minutes; and it representsa lively exchange between Professor Diamond and Senator BirchBayh, the sponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment forthe direct election of the President. Professor Diamond's priorpublication (see below), is a more systematic defense of theElectoral College against six American Bar Association chargesthat the College is "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous,indirect, and dangerous."     

Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing

In public opinion polls, a substantial proportion of lay respondents report that judges are too lenient. We examine the factors that contribute to this perceived judicial leniency. The majority of lay respondents in our study said that judges are too lenient in their sentencing of burglary offenders; yet, their own sentencing preferences were more lenient than the required minimum sentence for residential burglary. Our survey and experimental data suggest that citizens' opinions are formed by their inaccurate impressions of the seriousness of actual criminal cases as well as actual judicial sentencing practices. Our experimental research indicates that opinions of judicial leniency can be changed by providing respondents with an example of the typical case that comes before the court. Directions for future research are discussed.We wish to express gratitude to Patti Vea, who, under the supervision of the first author, collected and entered the data from mass transit riders. We are indebted to Judge Warren Wolfson, Court Administrator Jeff Arnold, Chief Judge Harry Comerford, and Judge Frank W. Barbaro and his jury pool officers who gave us permission and assistance in obtaining juror participation for this research. We would like to thank Tom Tyler and Patrick McAnany for their insightful comments on earlier drafts, and editor Ron Roesch and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.     

Search for Sentencing Equity: Sentence Review in Massachusetts and Connecticut

Grievances and restlessness among convicted prisoners led to legislation–in 1943 in Massachusetts, in 1957 in Connecticut–establishing sentence review boards composed of three judges of the trial courts of first instance. The authors explore in these two jurisdictions how often and under what circumstances sentences are appealed and modified and what effect, if any, these modifications have on the sentencing practice in the trial courts. They also appraise the value of the Connecticut requirement that the review board state the reasons for its decisions. The authors explore the function of the review boards in the broader context of the need for reducing sentence disparity.