The construction and validation of the homopositivity scale: an instrument measuring endorsement of positive stereotypes about gay men

Social scientists appear to focus on negative beliefs about, and attitudes toward, gay men and lesbian women. This emphasis, though understandable in view of the widespread oppression of gay and lesbian individuals, is somewhat myopic because it ignores what might be referred to as the positive dimension of stereotypes. Although such a concept may appear oxymoronic, it is widely recognized that individuals may endorse a mixture of positive and negative stereotypes toward stigmatized groups such as African Americans and women. The purpose of the current series of studies (Study 1, N = 212; Study 2, N = 105) was to devise an instrument measuring endorsement of positive stereotypes about gay men (Homopositivity Scale; HPS). Two versions of the HPS (of varying length) were evaluated, with scale scores on both appearing to be internally consistent and factorially distinct from scales measuring negative stereotypes and prejudices about gay men. These studies also suggest that females are more likely than males to endorse positive stereotypes about gay men, and that such endorsement is negatively associated with need for uniqueness and need for cognition, and positively associated with media contact and benevolent sexism. The limitations of the two studies are outlined and the importance of assessing positive stereotypes about gay men in conjunction with oft-examined homonegativity is discussed.     

The SESS multisite collaborative research initiative: establishing common ground

Multidisciplinary intervention approaches are needed for meeting service needs for families in which substance abuse and mental health disorders may be interfering with child‐rearing. Experiences from the Starting Early Starting Smart (SESS) initiative, a 12‐site national collaborative investigation of integrating behavioural health services in early childhood and primary health care service settings for children aged 0–5 years and their families and caregivers, are described. This 4‐year applied research initiative was co‐funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services and Casey Family Programs, a private operating foundation. SESS, which was developed and implemented in 12 geographically and culturally diverse cities in the USA during 1997–2001, encouraged federal, state, and local public/private partnerships. Opportunities and challenges in using an inclusive, consensus‐based, stakeholder model to maximize study relevance and utility for researchers, practitioners, and fiscal sponsors are discussed, and lessons for multidisciplinary, multisite research collaborations are identified.     

Applications and Implementation

We propose an alternative solution to the discriminant problem, one that requires little more than a minimum familiarity with linear programming. The approach shows promise for eliminating the complexities of conventional statistical approaches without sacrificing the essential power of existing methods.     

A Stochastic Goal Program for Employee Scheduling*

Deterministic goal programs for employee scheduling decisions attempt to minimize expected operating costs by assigning the ideal number of employees to each feasible schedule. For each period in the planning horizon, managers must first determine the amount of labor that should be scheduled for duty. These requirements are often established with marginal analysis techniques, which use estimates for incremental labor costs and shortage expenses. Typically, each period in the planning horizon is evaluated as an independent epoch. An implicit assumption is that individual employees can be assigned to schedules with as little as a single period of work. If this assumption violates local work rules, the labor requirements parameters for the deterministic goal program may be suboptimal. As we show in this research, this well-known limitation can lead to costly staffing and scheduling errors. We propose an employee scheduling model that overcomes this limitation by integrating the labor requirements and scheduling decisions. Instead of a single, externally determined staffing goal for each period, the model uses a probability distribution for the quantity of labor required. The model is free to choose an appropriate staffing level for each period, eliminating the need for a separate goal-setting procedure. In most cases this results in better, less costly decisions. In addition, the proposed model easily accommodates both linear and nonlinear under- and overstaffing penalties. We use simple examples to demonstrate many of these advantages and to illustrate the key techniques necessary to implement our model. We also assess its performance in a study of more than 1,700 simulated stochastic employee scheduling problems.     

The Impact of a Structured-Argument Approach on Group Problem Formulation*

Despite advances in decision analysis and decision support systems, few formulaic procedures exist for undertaking problem formulation, particularly in group settings. This leaves managers with little procedural support for the important task of carefully structuring problems. In a laboratory experiment of 29 intact student teams, we contrasted two problem formulation methodologies: a structured argument approach (based on application of formal reasoning) and a group process approach (based on private idea generation prior to public sharing and evaluation of ideas). The structured argument approach took more time to use and failed to bring about more information search and equivocality reduction in group discussions. On the positive side, however, the structured argument approach led to a greater combination of both coverage of critical issues and consensus on those issues. Use of the structured argument approach also resulted in higher satisfaction with the problem definition and commitment to implementing results of the group meeting. Overall, the results reveal cost/benefit tradeoffs associated with developing argumentation-based procedures for problem formulation.     

The Divide Between “Evidenced‐Based” Approaches and Practitioners of Traditional Theories of Family Therapy

Evidenced‐based approaches continue to grow in the field of family therapy. However, practicing family therapists do not always embrace these approaches. In this article, we explore factors contributing to practitioners' concerns with evidence‐based treatments and suggest a broader, more clinically palatable view of evidenced‐based treatment. We also suggest how family therapy researchers, practitioners, and educators might begin to close the researcher–clinician divide in the best interest of all concerned.