Negative affect and hormone levels in young adolescents: Concurrent and predictive perspectives

The purpose of this study was to test hypotheses regarding (1) relations among negative affect and hormones of gonadal and adrenal origin in young adolescents, at three times of measurement, over a one-year period; and (2) stability of negative affect. The sample consisted of 10- to 14-year-old boys (N=56) and 9- to 14-year-old girls (N=52). The adolescents were assessed three times at 6-month intervals over one year. Serum levels of gonadotropins, gonadal steroids, adrenal androgens, and cortisol were assessed, as well as stage of pubertal development (Tanner criteria). The negative affect assessments consisted of self-report questionnaire and interview measures of anxiety and depressive affect, as well as mother reports of internalizing behavior problems. In the concurrent (cross-sectional) analyses, boys reporting higher levels of negative affect tended to be those at higher genital stage or older age, with lower testosterone and cortisol levels and lower dehydroepian-drosterone sulphate levels. In the longitudinal analyses, negative affect, and to a lesser extent hormone levels at the first time of measurement predicted negative affect 12 months later. The findings suggest that puberty-related hormone levels should be considered along with psychological characteristics in examining the processes involved in the development of negative affect during the pubertal years.Received Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University. Research interests include hormone-behavior interactions and emotional development.Received Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University. Research interests include neuroendocrinology and adolescent depression.Recieved M.D. from Athens University. Research interests include hypothalamic releasing factors and stress.     

Adolescent depression: Why more girls?

Although there has been evidence for some time of a sex difference in depression, relatively little research has examined the developmental process by which women come to be at greater risk than men for depression. In this paper, the developmental pattern of depressed affect is examined over early and middle adolescence, with a special focus on the patterns of boys as compared to girls. In addition, a developmental model for mental health in adolescence is tested for its power in explaining the emergence of gender differences in depression. Longitudinal data on 335 adolescents randomly selected from two school districts were used to test the hypotheses. Results revealed that girls are at risk for developing depressed affect by 12th grade because they experienced more challenges in early adolescence than did boys. The sex difference in depressed affect at 12th grade disappears once early adolescent challenges are considered.This research was supported in part by grants MH30252/38142 to A. Petersen. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of study participants and staff. Portions of this material were presented in a symposium at the 1988 meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, and one at the 1989 meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.Received Ph.D. from University of Chicago in 1973. Research interest in biopsychosocial development in adolescence, with a focus on sex differences in mental health.Research interests include adolescent mental health, and parent and peer relationships.Received Ph.D. in psychology from The Pennsylvania State University. Research interests include development of affective and conduct disorders, especially sex differences in these problems.     

The policy movement as a policy problem

The policy movement is unified by a common interest in the improvement of policy decisions through scientific inquiry. The movement is differentiated, however, because this common interest is highly ambiguous and subject to interpretation from different perspectives. This paper applies a policy sciences perspective to the movement's disappointments over the last few decades, and in particular, the failure to realize earlier aspirations for rational, objective analysis on the more important and controversial policy issues. The paper offers a definition and diagnosis of the underlying problem, and suggests what can be done about it as a matter of individual and collective choice.     

Popular science,social science,metaphor and deception

He written widely on a variety of topics and is author or co-author of many books and articles. Among his books are Address Unknown: Homelessness in America; Homelessness and Health; After the Clean-Up: Long Range Effects of Natural Disasters; Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Firearms; Under the Gun: Weapons Crime and Violence in America;and The State of the Masses.His current research focusses on adolescent violence and on treament programs for homeless alcohol and drug abusers.     

The influence of the gramm-rudman-hollings act on federal budgetary outcomes, 1986—1989

This article analyzes the impact of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) Act on federal budgetary and fiscal outcomes. Rather than portraying it as a two-on federal budgetary and fiscal outcomes. Rather than portraying it as a two-party game between Congress and the president, each with monolithic policy preferences, we view GRH as a multiparty negotiation game among advocates of different programs and agencies. In this game, agencies subject to sequestration and their congressional advocates have an incentive to reach a budget accord, while those exempt from sequestration do not. Consistent with this argument, we find that GRH has restrained outlays for nonexempt programs and that exempt programs have, if anything, experienced more rapid growth. Overall, GRH is estimated to have restrained outlays by $59 billion by fiscal 1989, and to have restrained outlays more effectively after the 1987 modifications in the Act. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act signals another phase in the decade-long struggle between the White House and Congress over public spending priorities. Our final counterfactual analysis suggests that GRH partially returned federal fiscal and budgetary relationships and priorities to those that prevailed before Reagan.