Performance of healthy, older adults on the Tower of London Revised: Associations with verbal and nonverbal abilities.

Neuropsychological studies suggest a subclinical impairment in executive function that occurs with normal aging. This is the first study to examine the performance of healthy older adults on the Tower of London-Revised (TOL-R), as well as the relationship between TOL-R performance and verbal and nonverbal abilities. Performance of 63 older adult participants on the TOL-R and two WAIS-III subtests was compared to that of 35 young adult college students. Group comparisons indicated age differences in TOL-R performance; however, these were eliminated after adjusting for individual differences in Matrix Reasoning performance. In the older adult groups, multiple regression analyses demonstrated that Matrix Reasoning performance was a stronger predictor of TOL-R performance than was chronological age or years of education. These results suggest that performance on the TOL-R is a psychometrically sound executive function measure for older adults and that individual differences in fluid intelligence are more predictive of performance than chronological age.

Student prejudice against gay male and lesbian lecturers.

The authors examined whether gay men and lesbians are evaluated more negatively than individuals of unspecified sexual orientation when attributional ambiguity surrounds evaluations and whether they are evaluated similarly to unspecified others when no attributional ambiguity is present. One male and one female lecturer delivered either a strong or a weak lecture to students who either (a) believed that the lecturer was a gay man or a lesbian or (b) did not receive sexual orientation information. Contrary to predictions, the quality of the lecture did not influence the ratings of known gay male and lesbian lecturers, although lecture quality strongly influenced ratings of lecturers whose sexual orientation was unspecified. After strong lectures, participants rated known gay male and lesbian lecturers more negatively than they did lecturers whose sexual orientation was unspecified. After weak lectures, participants rated known gay male and lesbian lecturers more positively than they did the others. The authors discussed the possibility that students might moderate their ratings to avoid discriminating against gay and lesbian lecturers.