Expectations regarding development during adolescence: Parental and adolescent perceptions

The aims of this study were (1) to compare the age-related expectations of parents and adolescents concerning the timing of achievement in a number of developmental tasks, (2) to examine whether personal characteristics of the adolescent affect developmental expectations, and (3) to examine whether discrepancies between the adolescents and the parents expectations are related to the amount of parent-adolescent conflict. The sample consisted of 508 families with adolescents (12–18 years old). During a home visit, a battery of questionnaires was administered individually to mothers, fathers, and adolescents. A new 24-item instrument to assess expectations for adolescents mastery of developmental tasks was developed for this study. Analyses showed that when the expectations of adolescents and those of their parents are compared at aggregate level, parents consistently indicate later ages for the achievement of developmental tasks than adolescents. Although parents have later timetables, parents and adolescents have strikingly similar views of the sequence in which achievement of developmental tasks should occur. The adolescents age appears to be the most potent predictor of developmental timetables, followed by gender, pubertal timing, and temperament, respectively. The amount of conflict within the parent-adolescent relationship was associated with differences in developmental expectations. The utility of the new instrument for research and clinical work is discussed.This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Culture (PCOJ).     

Book reviews

Ash Amin and John Tomaney (eds), Behind the Myth of European Union: Prospects for Cohesion (Routledge, London, 1995), 334 pp., ISBN 0–415–13078–6 (pb)

Stephen Gundle and Simon Parker (eds), The New Italian Republic: Front the Fall of the Berlin Wall to Berlusconi (Routledge, London, 1996), 334 pp., ISBN 0–415–12161–2 (hb), 0–415–12162 (pb)

Donald Sassoon, One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century (I. B. Tauris, London, 1996), 965 pp., ISBN 1–85043–879‐X

Geoff Mulgan, Connexity: How to Live in a Connected World (Chatto & Windus, London, 1997), 280 pp., ISBN 0–7011–6396–8     

EEOC guidance on psychiatric disabilities: many problems, few workable solutions

The EEOC recently issued "Enforcement Guidance" on psychiatric disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although the Guidance provides clarification of a few issues involving mental disabilities under the ADA, in most respects the Guidance is problematic. For example, the Guidance suggests that the inability to get along with a supervisor or coworkers may constitute a disability under the ADA, that an employer may have to "accommodate" a disabled employee's misconduct, that an employer cannot require an employee to follow doctor's orders as a condition of employment, and that an employer may be obligated to modify work rules and procedures to accommodate a mentally disabled employee but is prohibited from explaining to coworkers why it is making such modifications. As the EEOC's Guidance exceeds or conflicts with the ADA in some respects and is largely unworkable in many respects, it remains to be seen how many courts will actually follow it.     

Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.