A Multi-mediation Model on the Relations of Bullying,Victimization, Identity,and Family with Adolescent Depressive Symptoms

This study investigated a multi-mediation model of the relationship between bullying behavior, peer victimization, personal identity, and family characteristics to adolescent depressive symptoms in 194 high school students, 12–18 years of age. In the first model, peer victimization mediated the relation between bullying behavior and depressive symptoms. In the second model, personal identity mediated the relation between peer victimization and depressive symptoms. In the final model, the two mediation models were combined. The relative influence of family characteristics on all variables in the two mediation models was studied using structural equation modeling. The results supported both mediation models and confirmed the influence of family characteristics on all variables in the mediation models. This study indicates that victimization by one’s peers has consequences for adolescents’ psychological health when their personal identity is affected. In addition, the study was able to model several processes in which family characteristics were related to adolescent depressive symptoms. Moreover, the final combined model (in which the two mediation models and the influence of family characteristics on all variables were confirmed) explained half of the variance in adolescent depressive symptoms.

Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within‐study comparisons

This paper analyzes 12 recent within‐study comparisons contrasting causal estimates from a randomized experiment with those from an observational study sharing the same treatment group. The aim is to test whether different causal estimates result when a counterfactual group is formed, either with or without random assignment, and when statistical adjustments for selection are made in the group from which random assignment is absent. We identify three studies comparing experiments and regression‐discontinuity (RD) studies. They produce quite comparable causal estimates at points around the RD cutoff. We identify three other studies where the quasi‐experiment involves careful intact group matching on the pretest. Despite the logical possibility of hidden bias in this instance, all three cases also reproduce their experimental estimates, especially if the match is geographically local. We then identify two studies where the treatment and nonrandomized comparison groups manifestly differ at pretest but where the selection process into treatment is completely or very plausibly known. Here too, experimental results are recreated. Two of the remaining studies result in correspondent experimental and nonexperimental results under some circumstances but not others, while two others produce different experimental and nonexperimental estimates, though in each case the observational study was poorly designed and analyzed. Such evidence is more promising than what was achieved in past within‐study comparisons, most involving job training. Reasons for this difference are discussed. © 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Ethnicity,Islam, and Pakistani Public Opinion toward the Pakistani Taliban

This article argues that an Islamist militant group with a relatively homogenous ethnic make-up is more likely to be supported by those of the same ethnicity even if the group makes no reference to and even downplays the importance of ethnicity. Using survey data from an original survey carried out in Pakistan in 2013, with 7,656 respondents, this hypothesis is tested in a multiple regression analysis of support for the Pakistani Taliban. The results demonstrate that co-ethnicity between the respondent and the Islamist militant group is the most important predictor of support for the militant group.     

Response to “Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique,” by Milchman,Geffner, and Meier

The author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,” for this Special Issue of Family Court Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienation (PA). This short article is a response to the article by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier, which discussed my article and other contributions to the Special Issue. All of these articles represent an attempt by the Editors of the Special Issue to promote “dialogue” among writers who have different perspectives regarding parental alienation. In my view, this is a misguided endeavor, since the publication of cascading criminations, recriminations, and re‐recriminations simply creates confusion and consternation for the readers of Family Court Review. This new article offers an alternative approach for creating constructive dialogue among PA‐promoters and PA‐detractors, that is, convene a face‐to‐face discussion of these individuals and encourage them to write an article together in which they jointly explain their various perspectives regarding PA.