Valued occupational roles and life satisfaction among south Florida HIV-infected and non-infected homosexual males: An exploratory study

A study was conducted in order to describe and understand the occupational role behavior of gay men with particular interest on understanding the impact of an HIV diagnosis on their roles and life satisfaction. A 137-item questionnaire was developed for this study and distributed through various gay community groups in south Florida. The process resulted in ranked description of 24 valued occupational roles of gay men (n = 80) along with a general understanding of potential shifts that may occur in those roles as a result of becoming infected with HIV. The study concludes that a diagnosis of HIV infection impacts gay men both by altering their value for particular roles and by darkening the images they hold of their future. The study also identified key factors which may contribute to the greater life satisfaction of gay men including greater confidence in personal knowledge of HIV, a more optimistic outlook an life, the use of stronger coping styles, and perceiving stronger social support and lower stress. ^

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^

The influence of simulated disability slides and audiotape messages on college students' attribution of personality characteristics

The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes college students have toward those with physical disabilities and what personality characteristics they attribute to physical appearance. One-hundred-one introductory psychology students at FIU were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control--no disability group, a group that viewed five slides of peers with disabilities, and a group that viewed the disability slides and heard their voices. All subjects rated the individuals' perceived personality. A one-way ANOVA revealed that those in the visual and audio disability group rated those with disabilities significantly higher in friendliness, attractiveness, and assertiveness than those who rated the individuals without disabilities. Those in the visual and audio disability group rated them higher in self-esteem than those in the visual only disability group. Since voice can have such positive effects on first impression, an occupational therapist can work on improving communication skills of those with disabilities.