Direction of Causation Modeling Between Cross-Sectional Measures of Parenting and Psychological Distress in Female Twins

Under certain conditions, cross-sectional analysis of cross-twin intertrait correlations can provide important information about the direction of causation (DOC) between two variables. A community-based sample of Australian female twins aged 18 to 45 years was mailed an extensive Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire (HLQ) that covered a wide range of personality and behavioral measures. Included were self-report measures of recent psychological distress and perceived childhood environment (PBI). Factor analysis of the PBI yielded three interpretable dimensions: Coldness, Overprotection, and Autonomy. Univariate analysis revealed that parental Overprotection and Autonomy were best explained by additive genetic, shared, and nonshared environmental effects (ACE), whereas the best-fitting model for PBI Coldness and the three measures of psychological distress (Depression, Phobic Anxiety, and Somatic Distress) included only additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects (AE). A common pathway model best explained the covariation between (1) the three PBI dimensions and (2) the three measures of psychological distress. DOC modeling between latent constructs of parenting and psychological distress revealed that a model which specified recollected parental behavior as the cause of psychological distress provided a better fit than a model which specified psychological distress as the cause of recollected parental behavior. Power analyses and limitations of the findings are discussed.

Putting the group back into unions: A social psychological contribution to understanding union support

Industrial relations research that attempts to grapple with individuals' union-related sentiments and activities often draws on one of two traditions of psychological research—the individual-level factors tradition (for example, personality and attitude-behaviour relations) and the social context tradition (for example, frustration-aggression and relative deprivation). This paper provides an overview of research conducted from within these traditions to explain union-related phenomena and identifies some of the limitations that arise as a consequence of a shared tendency to treat people in an atomistic fashion. The paper argues for an understanding of the psychological processes that underpin group-based action. To this end, it elaborates a theoretical framework based on social identity theory and self-categorisation theory that would allow us to examine the dynamic interplay between the individual, their cognitions and their environment. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of a specific case of union mobilisation, to indicate how this theoretical framework might aid empirical analysis.