Social role playing and moral judgment development

This study examined the relationship between social role playing and moral judgment development. Subjects were 197 students enrolled in introductory social science courses at a public junior/community college in a metropolitan area in southeast Florida. The 78 males and 119 females ranged in age from 17 to 66 years, with a mean age of 22. Rest's (1979a, 1979b) Defining Issues Test (DIT) was used to measure level of moral judgment. Social role playing was measured by the number of separate roles held by subjects in the past or present. Academic aptitude, socioeconomic status, age, and sex were included as control variables. Academic aptitude, age, and social role playing each had significant zero-order correlations with moral judgment, and social role playing added significantly to the explanation of moral judgment, controlling for academic aptitude and age. Implications of these results for the understanding of the development of moral judgment and for intervention programs are discussed.     

A predictive model of male spousal violence

This study presents and tests a predictive model of severe marital violence by men based on social learning theory and previous research. Results of the path analytic procedure suggest that sex-role egalitarianism and approval of marital violence both have direct effects on the use of severe marital violence. At the same time, sex-role egalitarianism and the observation of marital violence as a child have indirect effects by several paths. Egalitarianism has an indirect negative effect on use of severe violence which depends upon approval of marital violence. Observation of marital violence has a negative effect on self-esteem which influences marital stress and level of alcoholism, both of which have an effect on approval of marital violence. Observation of violence as a child also has a direct effect on approval of violence and a negative effect on sex-role egalitarianism.     

Are hypnotically induced pseudomemories resistant to cross-examination?

Two experiments examined the effects of hypnotic procedures in response to interrogation and crossexamination in subjects who viewed a simulated robbery. Experiment 1 found that hypnotic and nonhypnotic leading interrogations were equally likely to produce misattributions and misidentification of mug shots. Moreover, under cross-examination subjects who had been given an hypnotic interrogation and those given nonhypnotic interrogations were equally likely to disavow their earlier misattributions and misidentifications. In both hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatments high hypnotizables were more likely than low hypnotizables to misattribute characteristics during interrogation and to disavow earlier misattributions during cross-examination. In Experiment 2 high hypnotizables given a cross-examination that legitimated their earlier errors as honest mistakes and that enabled them to disavow earlier testimony without discrediting themselves (hidden observer treatment) showed the highest and most consistent rates of disavowel. A stringent cross-examination that implied that subjects had been careless or dishonest during interrogation produced the lowest rates of disavowel.     

Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Insurance: End of a 200-Year Era?

This article examines state regulation of insurance, focusingon congressional and judicial attempts to displace state regulatoryprimacy over insurance. After describing the early period ofstate insurance regulation from the U.S. Supreme Court's decisionin Paul v. Virginia to the Court's overruling of that decision,the article examines the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the post-McCarranenvironment, including examples of judicial preemption of stateinsurance laws. Finally, the article considers the system ofinsurance regulation envisioned in H.R. 1290, the most recentcongressional attempt to displace state insurance regulation,and state initiatives to counter federal regulation. AlthoughH.R.1290 purports to setup a dual regulatory scheme, the broadpreemption language in the bill would allow federal regulatorsto preempt virtually all state insurance laws. Moreover, thedecisions of the Supreme Court in Garcia v. San Antonio MetropolitanTransit Authority and Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Councilwould leave no political or judicial forum for states to debatethe extent and impact of federal preemption     

The Changing Paradigm of Pacific Regional Politics

Abstract

Analyses of recent developments in Pacific regional politics have emphasized the role of ideas and new thinking about how the Pacific should engage in global and regional diplomacy (the so-called ‘paradigm shift’). These ideas include the call for regional self-determination, the claim that Pacific island states need to engage more assertively in global diplomacy, the call for a ‘genuine Pacific voice’ to be heard in global forums, recognition that a ‘one region approach’ need not be the best approach, the reconfiguring of diplomatic alliances to leverage Pacific island positions better in global forums, and embracing non-state actors as equal partners. The importance of this paradigm shift is that it challenges many prevailing stereotypes and assumptions about Pacific islands diplomacy. It recognizes and facilitates choices and alternatives. It emphasizes the imperative of being proactive and of taking responsibility for the challenges facing the Pacific islands; and being creative in finding solutions. This is a fundamentally empowering transformation. But in order to understand where this might lead, it is necessary to explore where this transformation has so far played out. Case studies at the national, regional and global levels give insights into the impact and potential of the new Pacific diplomacy.