This study sought to identify the effects of culture and sex on mate preferences using samples drawn world-wide. Thirty-seven samples were obtained from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (N = 9,474). Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed strong effects of both culture and sex, moderated by specific mate characteristics. Chastity proved to be the mate characteristic on which cultures varied the most. The preference ordering of each sample was contrasted with an international complement. Each culture displayed a unique preference ordering, but there were some similarities among all cultures as reflected in a positive manifold of the cross-country correlation matrix. Multidimensional scaling of the cultures yielded a five dimensional solution, the first two of which were interpreted. The first dimension was interpreted as Traditional versus Modern, with China, India, Iran, and Nigeria anchoring one end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Sweden anchoring the other. The second dimension involved valuation of education, intelligence, and refinement. Consistent sex differences in value attached to eaming potential and physical attractiveness supported evolution-based hypotheses about the importance of resources and reproductive value in mates. Discussion emphasizes the importance of psychological mate preferences for scientific disciplines ranging from evolutionary biology to sociology.

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of different stressors on various domains of quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients. The study focused on testing a model describing interrelations between two kinds of stress antecedents, two mediating variables--perceived stress and self-efficacy--and QOL. The participants were 60 cancer patients of both genders and various diagnoses. They were administered questionnaires of background information, QOL, perceived stress and general self-efficacy. Two stress indices were defined empirically: health stress (based on advanced disease stage, long disease duration, and undergoing treatment) and social stress (based on unemployment, recent immigration, and older age). Confirmatory factor analysis enabled defining five factors of QOL. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the index of social stress was related to more QOL scales than the index of health stress and very few interactions with the mediating variables. Structural equation modeling provided a more comprehensive and accurate view. It showed that the index of health stress affected QOL mainly through perceived stress, and that self-efficacy affected QOL by reducing perceived stress and increasing QOL. The major conclusions are that QOL is affected negatively by both health stresses and social stresses, but the former are mediated primarily by the experience of perceived stress.

This paper deals with the impact of pain on quality of life (QOL). Two major factors have contributed to the enhanced importance of QOL in recent years: the increasing frequency of pain and the resources devoted to its treatment, and the growing theoretical insight that pain affects the person as a whole. QOL is defined as the person's evaluation of his or her well-being and functioning in different life domains. It is a subjective, phenomenological, multidimensional, dynamic, evaluative, and yet quantifiable, construct. Commonly used scales for its assessment (eg, WHOQOL, SF-36) are described. Studies show that pain affects most domains of QOL, primarily physical and emotional functioning. The effect depends on the extent, duration, acuteness, intensity, affectivity, and meaning of the pain as well as on the underlying disease and the individual's characteristics. QOL is sensitive also to the treatment of pain and treatment modalities, as shown particularly by studies on cancer pain. Pain reduction is not always attended by the expected improvement in QOL. Pain is not synonymous with poor QOL and constitutes only one important factor determining QOL. The main conclusions are that treatment of pain should be multidisciplinary, considering the impact of pain and the treatment on QOL and targetting also improvement of the affected domains of QOL.

No abstract

Background: Health care personnel treating victims of politically motivated violence are at risk for traumatic stress symptoms. Few studies have assessed the positive psychological impact of politically motivated violence on health care workers. In this study, the level of positive psychological impact among health care workers with recurrent exposure to victims of politically motivated violence was examined. Methods: A validated questionnaire survey of health care personnel treating victims of politically motivated violence during 2000–2005 in two hospital settings was conducted. Positive psychological impact was assessed by the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory and traumatic stress symptoms were assessed using the Revised Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Inventory. Subjects included physicians (surgeons and anesthesiologists), nurses, and psychotherapists. Results: The rate of response to the mail-in questionnaires was 68.3% (n = 138). The sample consisted of 70 physicians, 37 nurses, and 31 hospital-based psychotherapists. Positive psychological impact was noted for the entire sample and among all professions. Traumatic stress symptoms predicted positive psychological impact for the entire sample and for each profession, and there was a curvilinear relationship between traumatic stress symptoms and positive psychological impact. Women experienced greater levels of positive psychological impact. Conclusions: Hospital-based health care providers treating victims of politically motivated violence experience both positive and negative psychological impact. Individuals who are more traumatized by their experience are more likely to also have a positive psychological impact.

Denial is a basic mechanism for coping with stressful themes, common in healthy and sick individuals. This article deals with the role and functions of denial in cancer, reviewing empirical studies about the effects of denial on cancer prevention, screening, undergoing tests for early detection, delay in seeking medical attention and getting treatment, complying with medical instructions, and coping with the disease in different stages. Special sections are devoted to the possible role of denial as a risk factor for cancer, the effects of denial on disease course and survival, and the relation of denial to immunocompetence. Major conclusions are that denial may have a positive effect when applied in the first phase of coping, after diagnosis, because it reduces anxiety. This holds also for the terminal stage. The negative effects of denial are that it may interfere with getting treatment (e.g., delay in going to the doctor, not showing up for follow-ups, noncompliance), may disrupt the process of assimilating the stressful event, may affect adversely interpersonal relations, and constitutes a cumulative stressor depressing even immunocompetence. The use of denial varies with the severity of the situation, the patient's personality, and his or her familial and cultural background. A large body of research examined the hypothesis that a tendency toward denial could be one of the risk factors for cancer. Despite evidence supporting the occurrence of denial as a correlate of cancer, a lot of research is necessary to clarify the role of denial in general and of anger specifically as a factor affecting the occurrence of cancer and the course of disease and survival.

The findings provide supporting evidence for the existence of associations between mood variables and decreased BMD. Further research is required for gaining deeper insight into these relationships.