scholarly journals Process Test Evaluation Report Waste Retrieval Sluicing System Emissions Collection (Phase 1 - 2 and 3)

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.B. PARKMAN
1981 ◽  
Vol 58 (11) ◽  
pp. 904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Chapman ◽  
Janice Fleming

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narelle K. Hansell ◽  
Arpana Agrawal ◽  
John B. Whitfield ◽  
Katherine I. Morley ◽  
Gu Zhu ◽  
...  

AbstractAlcohol dependence symptoms and consumption measures were examined for stability and heritability. Data were collected from 12,045 individuals (5376 twin pairs, 1293 single twins) aged 19 to 90 years in telephone interviews conducted in three collection phases. Phases 1 and 2 were independent samples, but Phase 3 targeted families of smokers and drinkers from the Phase 1 and 2 samples. The stability of dependence symptoms and consumption was examined for 1158 individuals interviewed in both Phases 1 and 3 (mean interval = 11.0 years). For 1818 individuals interviewed in Phases 2 and 3 (mean interval = 5.5 years) the stability of consumption was examined. Heritability was examined for each collection phase and retest samples from the selected Phase 3 collection. The measures examined were a dependence score, based on DSM-IIIR and DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence, and a quantity × frequency measure. Measures were moderately stable, with test–retest correlations ranging from .58 to .61 for dependence and from .55 to .64 for consumption. However, the pattern of changes over time for dependence suggested that the measure may more strongly reflect recent than lifetime experience. Similar to previous findings, heritabilities ranged from .42 to .51 for dependence and from .31 to .51 for consumption. Consumption was significantly less heritable in the younger Phase 2 cohort (23–39 years) compared to the older Phase 1 cohort (28–90 years).


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Léon Beauvois

After having been told they were free to accept or refuse, pupils aged 6–7 and 10–11 (tested individually) were led to agree to taste a soup that looked disgusting (phase 1: initial counter-motivational obligation). Before tasting the soup, they had to state what they thought about it. A week later, they were asked whether they wanted to try out some new needles that had supposedly been invented to make vaccinations less painful. Agreement or refusal to try was noted, along with the size of the needle chosen in case of agreement (phase 2: act generalization). The main findings included (1) a strong dissonance reduction effect in phase 1, especially for the younger children (rationalization), (2) a generalization effect in phase 2 (foot-in-the-door effect), and (3) a facilitatory effect on generalization of internal causal explanations about the initial agreement. The results are discussed in relation to the distinction between rationalization and internalization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document