Does Hostile Attributional Bias for Relational Provocations Mediate the Short-Term Association between Relational Victimization and Aggression in Preadolescence?

This short-term longitudinal study examined the direct association between relational victimization and relational aggression over a five-month period, and proposed that hostile attributional bias for relational provocations mediated this association. Participants were 140 preadolescents (aged 9 to 11 years) in grades four and five. Relational victimization and relational aggression were assessed from self-reports. Hostile intent attributions were measured from preadolescent's responses to hypothetical provocation situations that depicted ambiguous relational aggression among peers. Concurrent and longitudinal findings revealed that more relationally victimized preadolescents were also more relationally aggressive toward their peers. Hostile attributions partially mediated the concurrent association between relational victimization and relational aggression at T1 only. Boys reported significantly higher levels of physical victimization, physical aggression, and relational aggression than girls. Implications for prevention programs are discussed. Rachel Yeung is a Doctoral student in Psychology at University of Victoria, Canada. She received her MSc in Life-Span Developmental Psychology at University of Victoria. Her research interests include risk and protective factors among children and adolescents who are victimized by their peers and program intervention. Dr. Bonnie Leadbeater, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology who joined the University of Victoria in 1997 after 9 years as Faculty at Yale University. She is Director of the Centre for Youth and Society's research and programs that promote youth health and resilience through community-university research partnerships. She received her PhD in Developmental Psychology from Columbia University, New York. Her research interests include depression in adolescence, resilience among high-risk youth, and the prevention of peer victimization.     

Theorizing waste in abortion and fetal ovarian tissue use.

This article explores the theoretical implications of the concept of waste as it specifically relates to arguments in favour of fetal ovarian tissue use as a source of donor eggs. The author begins by discussing medico-scientific constructions of women's reproductive bodies as wasteful. The article explores the works of Drucilla Cornell on bodily borders, Julia Kristeva on abjection, and Mary Douglas on pollution to develop a nuanced understanding of the relations between waste, women's reproductivity, and abortion in North American mainstream and medico-scientific cultures. This layered reading of waste and abortion deconstructs a significant assumption of arguments in favour of fetal ovarian tissue use as ethical--that such tissue is just "waste." The author suggests that theorizing waste this way may contribute to ethical analyses of uses of other reproductive materials (that is, embryos) that are supported, in part, by an assumption that those materials would otherwise be "wasted."