The relationship of perceptions and emotions to behavior in the face of collective inequality

The present experiment investigated the role of emotions and perceptions in determining the overt behavior of disadvantaged group members. Three limitations to the existing psychological research are presented as a possible reason for the present inability to describe a consistent relationship between the emotions and perceptions of those faced with intergroup inequalities and their subsequent actions. The present experiment attempted to address these limitations by employing a laboratory paradigm in which subjects actually engage in overt behavior. As well, a broader array of emotions and perceptions were assessed and subjects were offered a variety of behaviors from which to choose. The findings point to a relatively strong relationship between emotions and perceptions on the one hand, and overt action on the other. Feelings of frustration and anger, the perception of one's personal treatment as satisfactory and just, and hope of future improvement of one's position combined to discriminate between subjects who accepted their disadvantaged position, those who took normative forms of action, those who reacted in an individual nonnormative way, and those who chose collective nonnormative behavior.     

A longitudinal analysis of technical communication in research and development

A unique longitudinal study of the technical communication patterns of 184 engineers in a high technology research and development laboratory centers in the activities of technology gatekeepers. This two-step flow of technical information follows the literature as well as results from prior studies. Gatekeepers span the organizational boundary in the transfer of technology from outside the laboratory, while facilitating the distribution of technical information to colleagues within the organization. Sociometric data are analyzed over a five-year period with respect to changing organizational structures, new technical assignments and alterations in group composition. Despite these dynamic changes, the data reveal consistent results in gatekeeper identification and technical information flows.     

Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories

Drug screening through urinalysis is a widely accepted tool for rapid detection of potential drug use at a relatively low cost. It is, therefore, a potentially useful method for detecting and monitoring drug use in a variety of contexts such as the criminal justice system, pre-employment screening and a variety of treatment centers. This article explores the efficacy of two commercially available drug-screening assays: Online KIMS assay (Roche) and EMIT II assays. First, we evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of two immunoassays. A total of 738 urine samples were collected among adult arrestee populations from Chicago, New Orleans and Seattle through the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. Partial samples were split within one laboratory and analyzed by both enzymes multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) II and kinetic interaction of microparticle in solution (KIMS) assays for a 10-drug panel (amphetamine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, marijuana, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiate, phencyclidine and propoxyphene). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used as a confirmation method for all positives from either EMIT II or KIMS for all experiments. Second, the paper examines whether using different testing laboratories plays a role in the final results. The same experiments were repeated at two different testing locations: one in California and one in London and England. Third, the paper studies whether drug testing results vary between two laboratories when each of them had used their own routine screening method: the Forensic Science Service (FSS) at Birmingham, United Kingdom with KIMS assay and Medscreen Limited at London, United Kingdom with EMIT II. In summary, both EMIT II and KIMS assays generate fairly consistent results. The concordance rate against each of the 10 drugs tested is relatively high (97.4-100%). The discrepancies, in most cases, occurred at drug concentrations near the cut-off levels. There were more discrepant results between two laboratories compared to when specimens were analyzed at the same laboratory using two different assays.