The impact of grounded procedures can vary as a function of perceived thought validity, meaning, and timing

Cleansing (separation) inductions reduce the impact of negative and positive reactions, whereas connection manipulations magnify them. We suggest that grounded procedures can produce these effects by affecting the perceived validity of thoughts. In accord with the self-validation theory, we also note the importance of considering how moderators, such as the meaning of the action and the timing of inductions, affect outcomes.

“Here the Professors Are Your Guide, Tus Guías”: Latina/o Student Validating Experiences With Faculty at a Hispanic-Serving Community College

Through interviews with nine Latina/o students enrolled in a 2-year Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), this study examined their interactions with faculty utilizing validation theory as a guiding framework. Findings demonstrate the critical role faculty serve as validating agents and the importance of supporting 2-year HSIs faculty to practice validating experiences. Validating faculty interactions have the potential to increase Latina/o community college student’s sense of belonging, persistence, and academic self-concept.

From Power to Inaction

Research has shown that people who feel powerful are more likely to act than those who feel powerless, whereas people who feel ambivalent are less likely to act than those whose reactions are univalent (entirely positive or entirely negative). But what happens when powerful people also are ambivalent? On the basis of the self-validation theory of judgment, we hypothesized that power and ambivalence would interact to predict individuals’ action. Because power can validate individuals’ reactions, we reasoned that feeling powerful strengthens whatever reactions people have during a decision. It can strengthen univalent reactions and increase action orientation, as shown in past research. Among people who hold an ambivalent judgment, however, those who feel powerful would be less action oriented than those who feel powerless. Two experiments provide evidence for this hypothesized interactive effect of power and ambivalence on individuals’ action tendencies during both positive decisions (promoting an employee; Experiment 1) and negative decisions (firing an employee; Experiment 2). In summary, when individuals’ reactions are ambivalent, power increases the likelihood of inaction.

Research agenda: Priorities for future research in second language assessment

In a recent state-of-the-art (SoA) article (Stoynoff 2009), I reviewed some of the trends in language assessment research and considered them in light of validation activities associated with four widely used international measures of L2 English ability. This Thinking Allowed article presents an opportunity to revisit the four broad areas of L2 assessment research (conceptualizations of the L2 construct, validation theory and practice, the application of technology to language assessment, and the consequences of assessment) discussed in the previous SoA and to propose tasks I believe will promote further advances in L2 assessment. Of course, the research tasks I suggest represent a personal stance and readers are encouraged to consider additional perspectives, including those expressed by Bachman (2000), Chalhoub-Deville & Deville (2005), McNamara & Roever (2006), Shaw & Weir (2007), and Stansfield (2008). Moreover, readers will find useful descriptions of current research approaches to investigating L2 assessments in Lumley & Brown (2005), Weir (2005a), Chapelle, Enright & Jamieson (2008), Lazaraton (2008), and Xi (2008).