This paper describes research that fills a void in the applicant reactions literature by developing a comprehensive measure of Gilliland's (1993) procedural justice rules, called the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Five separate phases of scale development were conducted. In Phase 1 we generated and refined the items. For Phase 2 we reduced the items through exploratory factor analysis using data gathered from 330 applicants for the job of court officer and found higher‐order factors consistent with Greenberg (1993a, 1993b). In Phase 3 we confirmed the factor structure using a separate sample of 242 applicants and trainees for the court officer job. In Phase 4 we assessed the initial convergent and divergent validity of the scale. In Phase 5 we tested the generalizability of these items in general and for those receiving positive and negative selection outcomes using 2 student samples. The results demonstrated the usefulness of the SPJS in differentiating each of Gilliland's procedural justice rules and relating them to outcomes included in his model of applicant reactions. A copy of the SPJS is included in the Appendix.

No abstract

No abstract

Systemic therapy would appear to be a viable form of treatment for people who exist in cultures that contain complex, extended family systems, such as those found in India. The practice of family therapy in India has evolved from Western concepts. These concepts appear to offer Indian therapists relevant and practical ways of working with families. However, some of these concepts need modifying before they can be used in an Indian context. Indian families may have very different worldviews and ideas of ‘self’ compared to families in the West, leading to different family organization. The situation can be further complicated by the cultural norms of therapists themselves. Therapists in India are often highly educated, come from upper‐middle‐class families and have been exposed to different cultures. They increasingly share many of the values of their counterparts in the West. At the same time, they retain aspects of their own cultural heritage, which is also the dominant culture for a large number of the families with whom they work. Thus, not only must Indian family therapists seek to work in culturally appropriate ways; they must also tolerate their own internalized conflicts regarding differing cultural norms. With the use of clinical data, this paper describes some of the personal and professional problems experienced by an Indian family therapist working with Western constructs of family organization.

No abstract