Conceptualizations of human environments.

Moos, Rudolf H.

doi:10.1037/h0035722

Cited by 420 publications

(242 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The situationists argued that behavior is by and large local rather than general, subject to the norms and expectations of a given social place or space. Attempts to formulate taxonomies of situations have frequently involved delineating the physical and interpersonal features of certain kinds of prototypical behavioral settings and social environments, like "church," "football game," "classroom," and "party" (Cantor, Mischel, & Schwartz, 1982;Krahe, 1992;Moos, 1973). Certain domain-specific skills, competencies, attitudes, and schemas are examples of personality variables contextualized in place.…”

Section: The Problem With Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

McAdams¹

1995

Journal of Personality

888

752

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in personality may be described at three different levels. Level I consists of those broad, decontextualized, and relatively nonconditional constructs called "traits," which provide a dispositional signature for personality description. No description of a person is adequate without trait attributions, but trait attributions themselves yield little beyond a "psychology ofthe stranger." At Level II (called "personal concems"), personality descriptions invoke personal strivings, life tasks, defense mechanisms, coping strategies, domain-specific skills and values, and a wide assortment of other motivational, developmental, or strategic constructs that are contextualized in time, place, or role. While dispositional traits and personal concerns appear to have near-universal applicability. Level III presents frameworks and constructs that may be uniquely relevant to adulthood only, and perhaps only within modern societies that put a premium on the individuation of the self. Thus, in contemporary Western societies, a full description of personality commonly requires a consideration of the extent to which a human life expresses unity and purpose, which are the hallmarks of identity. Identity in adulthood is an inner story of the self that integrates the reconstmcted past, perceived present, and anticipated future to provide a life with unity, purpose, and meaning. At Level III, psychologists may explore the person's identity as an internalized and evolving life story. Each of the three levels has its own geography and requires its own indigenous nomenclatures, taxonomies, theories, frameworks, and laws.One of the great social rituals in the lives of middle-class American famihes is "the drive home." The ritual comes in many different forms.

show abstract

Section: The Problem With Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

McAdams¹

1995

Journal of Personality

888

752

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] The theoretical underpinnings for these studies derive from social ecology theory [4][5][6] and strain and social disorganization theories, [7][8][9] which postulate that illicit drug use can be explained in part as a response to neighborhood environments that cause undue stress or strain, lack the community-level organization or collective efficacy to sanction illegal-drug-using behavior, and present the individual with frequent opportunities to purchase and use illegal drugs. In fact, both drug-using and abstaining residents of more disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to be approached by someone offering illicit drugs than residents of more advantaged neighborhoods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Drug Treatment Facilities Increase Clients’ Exposure to Potential Neighborhood-Level Triggers for Relapse? A Small-Area Assessment of a Large, Public Treatment System

Jacobson

2006

J Urban Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on drug treatment facility locations has focused narrowly on the issue of geographic proximity to clients. We argue that neighborhood conditions should also enter into the facility location decision and illustrate a formal assessment of neighborhood conditions at facilities in a large, metropolitan area, taking into account conditions clients already face at home. We discuss choice and construction of smallarea measures relevant to the drug treatment context, including drug activity, disadvantage, and violence as well as statistical comparisons of clients`home and treatment locations with respect to these measures. Analysis of 22,707 clients discharged from 494 community-based outpatient and residential treatment facilities that received public funds during 1998-2000 in Los Angeles County revealed no significant mean differences between home and treatment neighborhoods. However, up to 20% of clients are exposed to markedly higher levels of disadvantage, violence, or drug activity where they attend treatment than where they live, suggesting that it is not uncommon for treatment locations to increase clients`exposure to potential environmental triggers for relapse. Whereas on average both home and treatment locations exhibit higher levels of these measures than the household locations of the general population, substantial variability in public treatment clients`home neighborhoods calls into question the notion that they hail exclusively from poor, high drug activity areas. Shortcomings of measures available for neighborhood assessment of treatment locations and implications of the findings for other areas of treatment research are also discussed.

show abstract

“…Le questionnaire présenté ne s'appuie donc pas sur les trois domaines proposés par Moos (1973), mais nous ne considérons pas cela comme un biais pour diverses raisons. Premièrement, les domaines ne sont en fait qu'une tentative de regrouper les dimensions de questionnaires existants en catégories distinctes ; il n'y a aucune volonté d'exhaustivité dans cette démarche et bon nombre d'outils dans le champ ne couvrent d'ailleurs pas ces trois domaines.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Il possède neuf dimensions (ou échelles) qui peuvent être -à l'instar des autres outils mesurant le climat social -regroupés en trois domaines distincts (Moos, 1973) 3 . Comme on le voit dans le tableau 1, le premier domaine des relations interpersonnelles touche l'investissement et la participation de l'étudiant à la vie scolaire, ainsi que des aspects tels que l'amitié, le soutien, la friction ou le favoritisme.…”

Section: La Mesure Du Climat Socialunclassified

Validation d’un instrument mesurant le climat d’études perçu par les étudiants universitaires

Genoud

2014

mee

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article présente la validation en français d’un instrument permettant d’appréhender le climat social des études, tel que perçu par des étudiants universitaires. Plus spécifiquement, cet outil se focalise sur les dimensions liées au domaine des relations interpersonnelles, telles qu’elles apparaissent dans le College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI; Fraser & Treagust, 1986). Dans un premier temps, une analyse factorielle exploratoire permet de mettre en évidence quatre composantes principales. Dans un second temps, une analyse factorielle confirmatoire étaye la présence de cette structure avec les facteurs Personnalisation, Implication, Cohésion et Satisfaction. La version finale comporte 20 items et possède des qualités psychométriques très satisfaisantes.This article presents the validation in French of a scale measuring the social climate of studies as perceived by university students. More specifically, this questionnaire is focused on dimensions concerned with the interpersonal relationships domain as they appear in the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI; Fraser & Treagust, 1986). In a first step, an exploratory factor analysis yields four principal components. In a second step, a confirmatory factor analysis corroborates this structure with the scales Personalization, Involvement, Student Cohesiveness and Satisfaction. The final version consists of 20 items and shows very satisfactory psychometric characteristics.Este artigo apresenta a validação em francês de um instrumento que permite apreender o clima social dos estudos, tal como é percepcionado pelos estudantes universitários. Mais especificamente, este utensílio focaliza-se nas dimensões ligadas ao domínio das relações interpessoais, tais como aparecem no College e University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI; Fraser & Treagust, 1986). Num primeiro momento, uma análise factorial exploratória permite evidenciar quatro componentes principais. Num segundo momento, uma análise factorial confirmatória especifica a presença desta estrutura com os factores Personalização, Implicação, Coesão e Satisfação. A versão final comporta 20 itens e possui qualidades psicométricas muito satisfatórias

show abstract

Conceptualizations of human environments.

Cited by 420 publications

References 64 publications

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

What Do We Know When We Know a Person?

Do Drug Treatment Facilities Increase Clients’ Exposure to Potential Neighborhood-Level Triggers for Relapse? A Small-Area Assessment of a Large, Public Treatment System

Validation d’un instrument mesurant le climat d’études perçu par les étudiants universitaires

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About