Conventional wisdom has regarded low self-esteem as an important cause of violence, but the opposite view is theoretically viable. An interdisciplinary review of evidence about aggression, crime, and violence contradicted the view that low self-esteem is an important cause. Instead, violence appears to be most commonly a result of threatened egotismwthat is, highly favorable views of self that are disputed by some person or circumstance. Inflated, unstable, or tentative beliefs in the self's superiority may be most prone to encountering threats and hence to causing violence. The mediating process may involve directing anger outward as a way of avoiding a downward revision of the selfconcept. Only a minority of human violence can be understood as rational, instrumental behavior aimed at securing or protecting material rewards. The pragmatic futility of most violence has been widely recognized: Wars harm both sides, most crimes yield little financial gain, terrorism and assassination almost never bring about the desired political changes, most rapes fail to bring sexual pleasure, torture rarely elicits accurate or useful information, and most murderers soon regret their actions as pointless and selfdefeating (Ford, 1985; Gottfiedson & Hirschi, 1990; Groth, 1979; Keegan, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993; .Scm'ry, 1985). What drives people to commit violent and oppressive actions that so often are tangential or even contrary to the rational pursuit of material self-interest? This article reviews literature relevant to the hypothesis that one main source of such violence is threatened egotism, particularly when it consists of favorable self-appraisals that may be inflated or ill-founded and that are confronted with an external evaluation that disputes them. The focus on egotism (i.e., favorable self-appraisals) as one cause of violent aggression runs contrary to an entrenched body of wisdom that has long pointed to low self-esteem as the root of violence and other antisocial behavior. We shall examine the arguments for the low self-esteem view and treat it as a rival hypothesis to our emphasis on high self-esteem. Clearly, there

https://www.emotionalcompetency.com/papers/baumeistersmartboden1996[1].pdf

Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem.

This article proposes that binge eating is motivated by a desire to escape from self-awareness. Binge eaters suffer from high standards and expectations, especially an acute sensitivity to the difficult (perceived) demands of others. When they fall short of these standards, they develop an aversive pattern of high self-awareness, characterized by unflattering views of self and concern over how they are perceived by others. These aversive self-perceptions are accompanied by emotional distress, which often includes anxiety and depression. To escape from this unpleasant state, binge eaters attempt the cognitive response of narrowing attention to the immediate stimulus environment and avoiding broadly meaningful thought. This narrowing of attention disengages normal inhibitions against eating and fosters an uncritical acceptance of irrational beliefs and thoughts. The escape model is capable of integrating much of the available evidence about binge eating.

http://psych415.class.uic.edu/Readings/Heatherton,%20Binge%20&%20escape,%20PsyBull,%201991.pdf

Binge eating as escape from self-awareness.

Preface.Chapter 1: Introduction.Organization of the Handbook.Role of the Clinician.Patterns of Test Usage in Clinical Assessment.Evaluating Psychological Tests.Validity in Clinical Practice.Clinical Judgment.Phases in Clinical Assessment.Recommended Reading.Chapter 2: Context of Clinical Assessment.Types of Referral Settings.Ethical Practice of Assessment.Test Bias and Use with Minority Groups.Selecting Psychological Tests.Computer-Assisted Assessment.Recommended Reading.Chapter 3: The Assessment Interview.History and Development.Issues Related to Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.The Assessment Interview and Case History.Mental Status Examination.Interpreting Interview Data.Structured Interviews.Recommended Reading.Chapter 4: Behavioral Assessment.History and Development.Issues Related to Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Strategies of Behavioral Assessment.Recommended Reading.Chapter 5: Wechsler Intelligence Scales.Testing of Intelligence: Pro and Con.History and Development.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Meaning of IQ Scores.Cautions and Guidelines in Administration.WAIS-III /WISC-III Successive Level Interpretation Procedure.Wechsler Subtests.Assessing Brain Damage.Assessing Additional Special Populations.Short Forms.Recommended Reading.Chapter 6: Wechsler Memory Scales.History and Development.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Interpretation Procedure.Recommended Reading.Chapter 7: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.History and Development.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Administration.Interpretation Procedure.Computerized Interpretation.Validity Scales.Clinical Scales.Two-Point Codes.MMPI-2 Content Scales.MMPI-A Content Scales.Harris-Lingoes and Si Subscales.Critical Items.MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Supplementary Scales.Recommended Reading.Chapter 8: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory.History and Development.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Interpretation Procedure.Modifying Indices (Validity Scales).Clinical Personality Patterns.Severe Personality Pathology.Clinical Syndromes.Severe Syndromes.Recommended Reading.Chapter 9: California Psychological Inventory.History and Development.Comparison with the MMPI.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Interpretation Procedures.Vector Scale Interpretation.Individual Scales.Special Purpose Scales.Configural Interpretation.Recommended Reading.Chapter 10: Rorschach.History and Development.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Approaching Consensus on Rorschach Validity.Administration.Scoring.Structural Summary.Interpretation.Recommended Reading.Chapter 11: Thematic Apperception Test.History and Development.Theoretical Perspectives.Reliability and Validity.Assets and Limitations.Administration.Typical Themes Elicited.Scoring Procedures.Interpretation.Recommended Reading.Chapter 12: Screening and Assessing for Neuropsychological Impairment.History and Development.Interviewing for Brain Impairment.Tests for Screening and Assessing for Neuropsychological Impairment.Tests of Visuoconstructive Abilities.Mental Activities (Attention and Speed of Information Processing).Memory and Learning.Verbal Functions and Academic Skills.Tests of Motor Ability.Executive Functions.Emotional Status and Level of Adjustment.Recommended Reading.Chapter 13: Brief Instruments for Treatment Planning, Monitoring, and Outcome Assessment.Selecting Brief Instruments.Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R) and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI).The Beck Depression Inventory.State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).Recommended Reading.Chapter 14: Psychological Assessment and Treatment Planning.Development and Approaches to Treatment Planning.A Systematic Approach to Treatment Selection.Functional Impairment.Social Support.Problem Complexity/Chronicity.Coping Style.Resistance.Subjective Distress.Problem-Solving Phase.Recommended Reading.Chapter 15: Psychological Report.General Guidelines.Format for a Psychological Report.Sample Reports.Recommended Reading.Appendix A: Test Publishers/Distributors.Appendix B: Percentile Rankings for Wechsler Deviation IQS.Appendix C: Conversion Formulas and Difference Scores for Determining Magnitude (.05 Level) of Fluctuations for Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed. WAIS-III) Additional Groupings.Appendix D: Conversion Formulas and Difference Scores for Determining Magnitude (.05 Level) of Fluctuations for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed. WISC-III) Factor Scores and Additional Groupings.Appendix E: Directions for Completing Appendix E: Worksheet for Determining Magnitude of WISC-III Subtest Fluctuations.Appendix F: Guidelines for Hypothesizing Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses.Appendix G: Directions for Hand Scoring the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) Validity and Clinical Scales.Appendix H: Feedback Statements for the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales.Appendix I: Descriptive Statistics for Nonpatient Adults (N = 600).Appendix J: Maturational Guidelines for Bender Gestalt Designs.Appendix K: Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test Scoring Sheet.Appendix L: Norms for the Standard Administration of the RAVLT.WISC-IV Supplement.References.Author Index.Subject Index.

Handbook of psychological assessment

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was translated into 28 languages and administered to 16,998 participants across 53 nations. The RSES factor structure was largely invariant across nations. RSES scores correlated with neuroticism, extraversion, and romantic attachment styles within nearly all nations, providing additional support for cross-cultural equivalence of the RSES. All nations scored above the theoretical midpoint of the RSES, indicating generally positive self-evaluation may be culturally universal. Individual differences in self-esteem were variable across cultures, with a neutral response bias prevalent in more collectivist cultures. Self-competence and self-liking subscales of the RSES varied with cultural individualism. Although positively and negatively worded items of the RSES were correlated within cultures and were uniformly related to external personality variables, differences between aggregates of positive and negative items were smaller in developed nations. Because negatively worded items were interpreted differently across nations, direct cross-cultural comparisons using the RSES may have limited value.

/pdf/simultaneous-administration-of-the-rosenberg-self-esteem-3wlw5sdfhu.pdf

Simultaneous Administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 Nations: Exploring the Universal and Culture-Specific Features of Global Self-Esteem.

EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati

measurement and evaluation in counseling and Development

The purpose of the study was to develop a brief and efficient instrument for assessment, treatment planning, and evaluation of clients by counselors who use Rational Emotive Therapy (RET). Subjects were 235 undergraduate students. Eleven Guttman scales were developed following factor analysis. Each factor is measured by a Guttman scale with a coefficient of reproducibility of 0.90 or greater and with a coefficient of scalability of 0.60. Pre- and posttest scores were obtained for 40 mental health professionals attending an all-day workshop on RET. Over-all test scores were significantly different at the 0.025 level in the predicted direction. There was also a significant difference in the predicted direction between pretest scores of the professionals and the college students. In another study, 87 professionals attending a two day workshop on RET were tested before and after the workshop. There were significant differences in the predicted direction at the 0.025 level or beyond for the overall test scores...

Development of the Rational Behavior Inventory: Initial Validity and Reliability

Contrasting faith-based and traditional substance abuse treatment programs.

Two hundred twenty-two students at Michigan State University completed a questionnaire including the Rational Behavior Inventory (RBI), the Srole Anomia scale, Lane's Authoritarianism scale, a ten-...

Validation Testing of the Rational Behavior Inventory.

Since the mid-20th century, instructional technologies and educational media in social work education have undergone significant development with the goals of improving learning and performance and enhancing access. This growth has been marked by technical advances in hardware and by innovations in media, or so-called soft formats. Current distance education and Web-based instructional programs allow for the enrichment of onsite instructional activities as well as open possibilities for the ever-expanding outreach of social work educational programs. The article describes the evolution of instructional technology and media in social work and reviews the historical contributions of 8 pioneering schools.

History and Development of Instructional Technology and Media in Social Work Education

The Diversity and Oppression Scale (DOS) is a standardized instrument measuring self-reported student learning about diversity and oppression based on requirements of the Council on Social Work Education. DOS was tested with social work students in 2 major North American universities. Factor structure was examined using exploratory factor analysis (N = 329). Predictive validity was tested with a confirmatory factor analysis and paired sample t-tests (N = 329). Construct validity was tested by examining correlations between DOS and existing scales measuring social justice, oppression, cultural competence, counselor burnout, empathy, and social desirability bias (N = 87). DOS has 4 factors: cultural diversity self-confidence (α = .90; 11 items), diversity and oppression (α = .69; 8 items), social worker/client congruence (α = .84; 3 items), and social worker responsibilities (α = .61; 3 items).

Clayton T. Shorkey

Papers

Development of the Rational Behavior Inventory: Initial Validity and Reliability

Contrasting faith-based and traditional substance abuse treatment programs.

Validation Testing of the Rational Behavior Inventory.

History and Development of Instructional Technology and Media in Social Work Education

Measuring Student Learning in Social Justice Courses: The Diversity and Oppression Scale