No abstract

This study investigated subjects' cognitive, affective, and physiological reactions to equity and inequity. Results confirmed two hypotheses derived from equity theory: (a) Subjects were more content (and less distressed) when they were equitably rewarded than when they were either underrewarded or overrewarded (Hypothesis 1). Further, overrewarded subjects were more content than were underrcwardcd subjects (Hypothesis 2). Hypothesis 3 predicted that when persons are led to expect inequity, they will be less distressed when an injustice is actually encountered than they would be had they been unprepared for the inequity. This hypothesis was also supported. This last finding was explained in terms of the notion of cognitive set, as developed by Austin.A fundamental assumption in the various equity theories (see Adams, 1965; Romans, 1961;Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973) is that individuals feel most comfortable when they are receiving a fair return for their social investments. For example, Walster et al. have claimed that when individuals receive more or less than they deserve, they experience distress. (When individuals are overcompensated, they may describe their distress as guilt or fear of retaliation. When they are undercompensated, they usually describe their distress as resentment or anger.) Although these equity theorists have insisted that both undercompensation and overcompensation generate distress, the theory acknowledges that an overbenefited participant should become less distressed by an inequity than should his deprived partner.Unfortunately, little compelling evidence exists to support the Walster et al. (1973) propositions. This void is extremely serious, since if individuals who find themselves enmeshed in inequitable relations do not experience distress, equity theory would no longer be capable of explaining why individuals try

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A structure for utilizing third party or collateral sources of information in the child custody evaluation is discussed. Collateral information is vital to the process of trying to assess the credibility and validity of information obtained from the primary parties in a dispute. Information that is from more neutral parties has higher credibility and when the party has access to key information it produces more discriminant validity. When a source with high discriminant validity agrees with information from a primary party, then it enhances the convergent validity on an issue or hypothesis. Child custody cases are inherently characterized by biased data within the adversarial process. Gathering data from collateral sources and using a system to evaluate their usefulness on confirmation of hypotheses is a necessary part of the emerging forensic‐clinical‐scientific child custody evaluation paradigm.

The issue of relocation presents courts and child custody evaluators with dilemmas on the issue of allowing a child to move with a parent to a new community and how to craft long‐distance parenting plans if relocation is allowed. The issue of the potential effects of residential moves on children of divorce has focused on the importance of the child–nonresidential parent relationship. The research literature on the effects of residential moves, or relocation, on children of divorce has not been fully integrated into the examination of this issue and its relevance for the child custody evaluation. The literature shows residential mobility is a general risk factor for children of divorce and this is a starting point for the custody evaluation, but it is not a basis for bias or a presumption against relocation. Predicting a child's adjustment to relocating or not relocating requires a careful and contextual investigation of the child and family circumstances. The research literature is a helpful frame of reference.

The forensic risk assessment model for child custody relocation cases was described by Austin (2000a, 2000b). It is a research‐based, actuarial predictive model designed to assist evaluators in organizing data for the complex relocation case. It is only the first step in the forensic relocation analysis. The model can serve as a heuristic for decision makers who are in a position of trying to resolve the decisional dilemmas associated with relocation. The research basis for the model is more fully described. The fact‐driven nature of relocation cases is emphasized. Evaluators and decision makers are also encouraged to integrate descriptive data that allow for a psychological cost/benefit analysis or the relative advantages/disadvantages to the children and parents associated with relocating or not relocating. The model is intended to facilitate the process of careful investigation by evaluators and to provide a scientific framework for the forensic analysis necessary for the crafting of appropriate parenting plans.