Adolescent attitudes toward random drug testing in schools

The current research examined students' perceptions of random drug testing for students participating in after-school activities. Results found students were more likely to endorse drug testing at their school if they are already engaged in after-school activities and not currently using drugs and/or alcohol. While middle and high school students' scores fell within the median, most reported if drug testing were implemented in their school they believed it would not deter continued participation in after-school activities. However, if drug testing were a prerequisite for participating in after-school activities, high school students were more apprehensive about getting tested than middle school students. Student respondents were more likely to endorse drug testing, if all members of the school system (i.e., teachers, coaches and staff) participated in drug testing. High school students' believed they had enough knowledge about drug abuse and were less likely to endorse drug testing because they believed it would violate their personal privacy compared to grade school students. Results also differed as a function of gender and self-reported drug and alcohol use.     

The Issue of Schools as Social Systems: Socialization Effects as Inferred from Lengths of Membership*

The critical limitation of the interpretation of schools as independent normative systems is the failure to demonstrate that observed student orientations are acquired in schools rather than in other settings such as the home or community. The problem is approached here as a question of whether students' orientations vary with lengths of membership in the same school organization. Data were examined for 7,954 students in 19 schools which contained grade-lengths 7-9, 7-12, 9-12, and 10-12. The analyses indicated that the distinctiveness of school normative climates is slightly but positively associated with lengths of school membership when school size is controlled. While schools can be viewed as relatively distinct systems, they should also be seen as highly permeable in the midst of their community and home environments.     

Typifications of Homosexuals*

Despite the importance of stereotyping to labeling theory, images of deviants have not been widely studied. This paper reports on social typifications about homosexuals. The data were obtained from 413 people in an urban metropolitan area who were asked to choose characteristics of homosexuals from a list of 34 traits. Factor analysis yielded three stereotypic dimensions: Sinful Lust, Sensitive Intellectual, and Sick Deviant. Compared with earlier work, Sinful Lust traits have apparently declined in importance, while Sensitive Intellectual traits have increased, and Sick Deviant traits have remained stable. The Sensitive Intellectual factor was related to greater tolerance of homosexuals, while the other two factors were related to greater rejection. Educational and age differences were also found on the three factors. Subgroup differences may selectively affect labeling and roles played by homosexuals. Shifts in typifications partly reflect shifts in “vocabularies of motive” concerning deviant behavior.     

A Methodological Study of Family Cohesion and Adaptability*

In an attempt to locate clinically and empirically useful tools to measure family cohesion and adaptability, a modified multitrait-multimethod analysis was used to assess the validity of four separate instruments. These instruments include SIMFAM, an adaptation of the Bowerman and Bahr Identification Scale, the Moos Family Environment Scale, and the Kvebaek Family Sculpture lest. The data support the Family Sculpture Test as a useful clinical and research tool for the measurement of family cohesion but not of adaptability.     

Contemporary Concerns in Family Therapy*

The literature indicates that recent clinical concerns concentrate on certain problem areas, while neglecting others. Theory building is slow; agreement on definition, indications, selection, evaluation, training programs, and a unifying conceptual schema is still lacking. Intervention and outcome evaluation remain insufficient. A need for broadness, flexibility, and avoidance of dogmatization is underlined. Resistance to a family and community intervention model continues. It is argued that strength rather than pathology needs emphasis. Some strategies to develop family therapy further are suggested and recommendations made to overcome outlined obstacles.