No abstract

No abstract

Supervision is a domain of professional practice conducted by many psychologists but for which formal training and standards have been largely neglected. In this article, supervision is proposed as a core competency area in psychology for which a number of elements reflecting specific knowledge, skills, and values must be addressed to ensure adequate training and professional development of the trainee. Supra-ordinate factors of supervision viewed as permeating all aspects of professional development are proposed. These include the perspective that professional development is a lifelong, cumulative process requiring attention to diversity in all its forms, as well as legal and ethical issues, personal and professional factors, and self- and peer-assessment. A competencies framework is presented with particular elements representing knowledge (e.g., about psychotherapy, research, etc.), skills (including supervising modalities, relationship skills, etc.), values (e.g., responsibility for the clients and supervisee rests with supervisor, etc.), and meta-knowledge. Social contextual factors and issues of education and training, assessment, and future directions also are addressed, with specific elements listed. Suggestions for future work in this area are addressed, including the need to refine further and operationalize competences, develop clear expectations for accreditation and licensure regarding supervision competencies, and expand the description of developmental levels of supervisors from minimal to optimal competence. This is one of a series of articles published together in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Several other articles that resulted from the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing in Professional Psychology will appear in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and The Counseling Psychologist.

No abstract

College students worked with a fictitious partner on a task for which their dyad received monetary reward. Subjects were told their performance was either superior or inferior to that of their partner and were then allowed to allocate the reward earned by their group. Males took more than half the reward when their performance was superior and less than half when their performance was inferior. Females took approximately half the reward when their performance was superior and much less than half when their performance was inferior. Females with superior performance also tended to minimize the difference between their own performance and that of their partner. These findings were contrasted with results from a study of children of preschool age. The reward allocation responses of subjects with superior performance were similar at both age levels, but those of subjects with inferior performance were not.