Interpersonal Relationships, Emotional Distress, and Prosocial Behavior in Middle School Kathryn R

JOURNALWentzel, McNamara OF EARLY / BEHAVIOR ADOLESCENCE IN MIDDLE / February SCHOOL 1999

Interpersonal Relationships, Emotional Distress, and Prosocial Behavior in Middle School Kathryn R. Wentzel Carolyn C. McNamara University of Maryland, College Park

Investigated in this study was the contribution of peer acceptance, perceived support from peers, and family cohesion to prosocial behavior in young adolescents. Based on theories of peer socialization, it was hypothesized that being accepted by peers would have a direct relation to prosocial behavior. In addition, emotional distress was examined as a possible mediator between adolescents’ perceptions of family and peer relationships and prosocial outcomes. In a sample of 167 sixth-grade students, hypotheses were supported in that peer acceptance was related directly to prosocial behavior and emotional distress mediated relations between perceived support from peers and prosocial behavior. Family cohesion was related negatively to distress but not to prosocial outcomes. The roles of parents and peers in promoting young adolescents’ social competence, as well as the importance of emotional well-being for positive social adjustment in middle school are discussed.

Helping, sharing, and cooperating are critical aspects of social competence in early adolescence that predict diverse outcomes in academic (e.g., Wentzel, 1994) as well as interpersonal (e.g., Ford, 1996; Wentzel & Erdley, 1993) domains. Although important consequences of behaving in a prosocial man- ner have been well-documented, less is known about the socialization experiences that promote the development of prosocial behavior. Some theorists argue that positive relationships with peers are critical for the emergence of prosocial skills (Piaget, 1965; Sullivan, 1953), whereas others focus on the effects of healthy family relationships (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Hoffman, 1983). Few studies, however, have tested those relations in young adolescent samples. Therefore, in the present study the contribution of family and peer relationships to prosocial behavior was examined.

114 Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 115

The empirical literature provides strong evidence of significant relations of prosocial behavior to peer relationships as well as to aspects of family functioning. With respect to peer relationships, popular, well-accepted adolescents tend to be more prosocial than their rejected, unaccepted peers (Hampson, 1984; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997; Wentzel & Erdley, 1993). Ado- lescents who believe they are well-accepted by their peers also display prosocial behavior more often than do those who are not well-accepted (Wentzel, 1994, 1998). Of additional interest for the present study was that adolescents who report high levels of family cohesion also tend to behave in caring and socially responsible ways toward adults and peers (Feldman, Wentzel, & Gehring, 1989; Romig & Bakken, 1992). Although parenting styles have been the primary focus of research on antecedents of young children’s social competence (Baumrind, 1978, 1991; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979), the affective, cohesive quality of families as a unit has gained recent attention as a socialization construct relevant for adolescence (e.g., Amato, 1989; Feldman, Rubenstein, & Rubin, 1988; Feldman & Gehring, 1988; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996). Family cohesion captures essential aspects of family life including mutual support, general interdependence, and emotional closeness and has been related to a range of social and personal compe- tencies during adolescence (Amato, 1989). What is it about interpersonal relationships that promotes the development and display of prosocial behavior? One possibility is that social encounters and experiences have a direct effect on the development and demonstra- tion of prosocial behavior. Proponents of a peer socialization perspective argue that peer relationships provide unique opportunities for children to learn and practice prosocial skills (Hartup, 1992; Kohlberg, 1969). Presumably, peer relationships provide a context in which conflicts can be resolved in a rela- tively egalitarian, reciprocal fashion (Piaget, 1965; Sullivan, 1953). Theorists have proposed that the psychological underpinnings of cooperative, prosocial behavior, including the adoption of principles of reciprocity and mutual respect, can develop only out of that type of peer interaction. If this perspective has merit, then children who are well-accepted by their classmates should benefit from peer interactions and be more likely to display a repertoire of positive, prosocial skills than would children who are not well-accepted. It also is possible that social relationships are related to prosocial behavior indirectly by way of adolescents’ emotional functioning. This second perspective is based on the notion that ongoing social encounters with families and peers result in subjective beliefs about the supportive nature of these interpersonal relationships. These subjective beliefs then influence 116 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 1999 emotional well-being and future displays of competent behavior toward others. This perspective might be relevant especially for young adolescents, given that perceived emotional support can provide a buffer against feelings of depression and distress as they begin to decrease their emotional depend- ency on family members (Feldman et al., 1988). A mediational model of influence is supported by Parke and colleagues (Parke, Cassidy, Burks, Car- son, & Boyum, 1992) who suggest that family and peer contexts both play an influential role in the development of emotion-regulation skills in young children. In turn, Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) have proposed conceptual links between emotion-regulation and prosocial behavior. At a more general level, Cohen and Wills (1985) have argued that perceived support within the context of social relationships can heighten emotional well-being, which in turn can have positive effects on social competence. Although this mediational hypothesis has not been examined directly with respect to prosocial behavior, having positive relationships with families and peers has been related consistently to adolescents’ emotional well-being. Adolescents without friends and who are not accepted by their peers tend to report less positive perceptions of self-worth than do those who enjoy more positive relationships with peers (e.g., Harter, 1990). Low levels of family cohesion have been related consistently to feelings of depression and emotional distress during adolescence (e.g., Feldman et al., 1988; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996). In addition, relations of emotional well-being to prosocial behavior are well-documented (Glyshaw, Cohen, & Towbes, 1989; Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey, 1970; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). In summary, somewhat divergent perspectives on socialization experiences are believed to promote the development of prosocial behavior. There- fore, prosocial behavior in relation to family as well as to peer relationships was examined in the present study. Two possibilities were explored. First, based on theories of peer socialization, it was hypothesized that being accepted by peers would have a direct relation to prosocial behavior. In this case, acceptance by peers was believed to influence directly displays of prosocial skills in young adolescents. Second, it was expected that links between prosocial behavior and social relationships might be mediated by adolescents’emotional well-being. In this case, perceived family cohesion and perceived social support from peer relationships would be related to emotional well-being; in turn, emotional well-being would be related to displays of prosocial behavior. These relations are depicted in Figure 1. Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 117

Figure 1: Hypothesized Relations Between Interpersonal Relationships, Distress, and Prosocial Behavior

METHOD

Participants The participants in this study were 167 sixth-grade students from a sixth- through eighth-grade middle school in a suburban, predominantly middle- class community. Approximately one-half of the students were female (n = 82) and 92% of the students were White (n = 154), with the remaining 8% of the sample being Black (n = 2), Hispanic (n = 3), Asian American (n = 4), and other ethnic status (n = 3). The participants comprised approximately one- half of the entire sixth-grade class. The classrooms were chosen by the school principal to represent a wide range of student abilities. All students in those classrooms participated unless parental permission was denied (n = 2).

Measures Data were gathered in late Spring during regular class sessions. Students were told the purpose of the study was to find out what it was like to be a middle school student by obtaining information from the experts, that is, the students themselves. Students were told that all of their answers would be confi- dential and that they did not have to answer any of the questions if they did not want to. Teachers remained in the classrooms during administration of measures. 118 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 1999

Peer acceptance. Peer acceptance was assessed using the procedure developed by Asher and Dodge (1986). Children were asked to respond on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all,5=very much) (“How much would you like to be in school activities with this person?”) (see Wentzel, 1991). Because middle school students do not stay with one group or in one classroom all day and therefore come into contact with a large number of peers, it was necessary to create a list of names that did not require them to rate all of the children with whom they share classes. Therefore, randomly generated lists of 25 names of same-gender peers were used for the rating scale measure of peer acceptance. Sixth-grade students were organized into 2 instructional teams (ns = 125 and 123), and students attended classes consisting only of team members. There- fore, students were given lists of 25 names of classmates randomly selected from their team. Students were instructed to cross out the names of classmates they did not know. The random selection procedure resulted in each student rating a unique set of names and each student receiving an average of 25 ratings. A peer acceptance score was based on the average of the ratings received for each student. Scores were then standardized within team. Acceptance ratings for girls were significantly higher than those for boys, t (210) = 4.82, p < .001, X/SD = –.31/.85 and .28/1.0 for boys and girls, respectively.

Family cohesion. Perceptions of supportive family relationships were assessed with the 10 item Family Cohesion subscale of the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981). Items (e.g., “Family members really help and support each other”) are scored such that 1 = false and2=true. Cronbach’s alpha was .73 for the present sample, X/SD = 17.47/2.33. Moos and Moos (1981) reported a test-retest reliability of .86 over an 8-week period.

Emotional distress. Emotional distress was measured with the Wein- berger Adjustment Inventory, Short-Form (Weinberger, Feldman, Ford, & Chastain, 1987). This scale contains 12 items that tap anxiety (e.g., “I worry too much about things that aren’t important”), feelings of depression (e.g., “I often feel sad or unhappy”), low self-esteem (e.g., “I’m not sure of myself ”), and low well-being (e.g., “I’m the kind of person who has a lot of fun,” reverse scored). Responses are made on 5-point scales, 1 = false and5=true, and are averaged to yield a distress score. Weinberger et al. (1987) report an internal consistency of .87 and a 1 week test-retest reliability of .83. In the present study, the X/SD was 9.87/3.36. Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 119

Prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior was assessed using a peer nomination procedure (see Wentzel,1991, 1994). Students were asked to nominate classmates on two behavioral characteristics: “Who cooperates and shares?” and “Who helps other kids when they have a problem?” Similar to the peer acceptance rating procedure, each student was given a list of 25 randomly generated names of same-gender classmates from their team. The random selection procedure resulted in each student rating a unique set of names and in each student receiving an average of 25 ratings. As such, randomly assigned and distinct sets of informants assessed peer acceptance and classroom behavioral style. Students were asked to circle the names of the classmates on each list who fit the behavioral description; students could circle as many or as few names as they wanted. The percentage of nominations was computed by dividing the number of nominations each child received by the total number of times the child’s name appeared on the nomination list and was not crossed out as someone unknown to the nominator. Then, to correct for nonnormal distributions, arc sine transformations were computed and scores were standardized within team. The two prosocial behavior scores were related significantly (r = .47, p < .001) and therefore, averaged to form a composite score.

RESULTS

Intercorrelations Correlations among variables are shown in Table 1. Prosocial behavior was related significantly and positively to peer acceptance and perceived support, and negatively to distress. Emotional distress also was related significantly and negatively to peer acceptance, perceived support, and family cohesion. Finally, gender was related significantly to prosocial behavior, perceived support, and peer acceptance. Therefore, given its possible con- founding effects, gender was included in subsequent analyses.

Predictors of Prosocial Behavior The relations depicted in Figure 1 were examined with a series of simultaneous multiple regressions. As prescribed by Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation was tested with three models. First, the dependent variable (prosocial behavior) was regressed on the independent variables (peer acceptance, perceived support from peers, family cohesion; see Table 2, Model 1). 120 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 1999

TABLE 1: Intercorrelations Among Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Prosocial behavior .— 2. Peer acceptance .50** .— 3. Perceived peer support .35** .24** .— 4. Family cohesion .03 .01 .15* .— 5. Distress –.16* –.17** –.37** –.42** .— 6. Gender .33** .18** .16** .05 .05 NOTE: Gender was coded such that male = 0 and female = 1. *p < .01. **p < .001.

TABLE 2: Results of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analyses

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender .21** .24** .28** Family cohesion –.01 –.38** –.12 Perceived peer support .22* –.36** .12 Peer acceptance .38** –.01 .38** Emotional distress .— .— –.28** Total R 2 .34** .34** .39** NOTE:Standardized beta weights are shown.Gender was coded such that 0 = male, 1 = female. The dependent variable for Models 1 and 3 was prosocial behavior and for Model 2, emotional distress. For Model 1, F(3,155) = 19.12, for Model 2, F(3,155) = 19.23, and for Model 3, F(4,154) = 18.86. *p < .01. **p < .001.

Second, the mediator (emotional distress) was regressed on the independent variables (Model 2). Third, the dependent variable was regressed both on the independent variables and the mediator (Model 3). Evidence for a direct path from peer acceptance to prosocial behavior would be found if peer acceptance remained a significant predictor when the other predictors were taken into account (see also Model 3). Results presented in Table 2 provide support for a direct relation between peer acceptance and prosocial behavior as well as partial support for a mediational model. As shown in Model 3, peer acceptance remained a significant positive predictor of prosocial behavior when the other social relationship variables and distress were taken into account. With respect to the mediation hypothesis, perceived support from peers was related positively to prosocial behavior (Model 1) and negatively to emotional distress (Model 2). In the full model, distress was a significant, negative predictor of prosocial behavior, whereas perceived support from peers was not a significant predictor of prosocial behavior. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), this pattern of results Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 121 provides strong support for a conclusion that distress mediates the relation between perceived peer support and prosocial behavior. Family cohesion did not predict prosocial behavior (Model 1), although it did predict emotional distress negatively (Model 2).

DISCUSSION

A primary goal for this study was to examine the contribution of peer acceptance, perceived support from peers, and perceived family cohesion to prosocial behavior in young adolescents. In support of a peer socialization perspective, peer acceptance was the only relationship variable that was related directly to prosocial behavior. In support of a mediational hypothesis, emotional distress explained significant relations between perceived support from peers and prosocial behavior. Emotional distress also served as a link between family cohesion and prosocial behavior, although not as a mediator. These findings are noteworthy in several respects. First, only peer acceptance was a direct, independent predictor of prosocial behavior. Therefore, as Sullivan (1953) suggested, it is reasonable to conclude that adolescents provide each other with ongoing opportunities to learn prosocial skills within the context of peer group interactions. This conclusion is supported by extensive literature linking prosocial behavior to peer acceptance in middle childhood (see Asher & Coie, 1990). The nature of peer interactions associated with peer acceptance is fairly ambiguous. Indeed, being accepted by peers is likely to result in more frequent interactions than would peer rejection, but the quality of such interactions is uncertain. Therefore, further work might focus on more specific aspects of peer relationships such as the quality of friendships (Keefe & Berndt, 1996) or group membership (Hogue & Steinberg, 1995; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Research on those various types of relationships might uncover additional links between adolescents’ peer relationships and prosocial behavior. In this study, psychological distress was as powerful a direct predictor of prosocial behavior as was peer acceptance. Emotional distress also mediated significant relations between perceived support from peers and prosocial behavior and provided a link between family cohesion and prosocial behavior. Clearly, therefore, multiple mechanisms are needed to explain the antecedents of prosocial behavior. Reasons why emotional distress might have a particularly powerful impact on prosocial behavior have not been explored extensively. However, Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1996, 1997) have demonstrated that prosocial behavior in young children is regu- lated in part by a set of self-regulatory skills that interact with emotional 122 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 1999 reactivity. In general, the Eisenberg work indicates that young children with prosocial tendencies also display constructive coping skills, abilities to regu- late attention, and low levels of emotional negativity. Studies of the emotional and physiological underpinnings of prosocial behavior in adolescence might provide important developmental insights into those relations. The role of emotional distress in linking adolescents’ perceptions of their social relationships to prosocial behavior also underscores the pervasive influence of the quality of adolescents’social experiences on their feelings of emotional distress. Significant, negative associations between perceived family cohesion and distress have been reported elsewhere (e.g., Wentzel & Feldman, 1996). However, the current findings confirm the important, albeit indirect role that parents play in young adolescents’ social competence at school. The notion that close family relationships can provide a buffer against feelings of depression and feelings of low social self-worth as young adolescents begin to establish more intimate relationships with peers clearly is supported (Feldman et al., 1988; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Of interest for further studies is the possible influence of other aspects of family system functioning on adolescent distress such as dyadic power structures within the family (Wentzel & Feldman, 1996), and specific parenting styles, especially those that reflect emotional neglect (e.g., Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). The correlational nature of these data preclude firm conclusions concern- ing direction of effects. Indeed, an alternative explanation is that young adolescents who behave in prosocial ways also tend to be those who are well- accepted by the broader peer group and experience emotional well-being as a result. Longitudinal studies and behavior interventions are necessary to determine the precise causal relations among these variables. In addition, Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) have proposed that peer influence on adolescent adjustment might be stronger in minority than in Caucasian samples. Therefore, additional research on more diverse populations is needed to clarify the universality of the mechanisms of influence identified in the present study. Finally, sixth-grade students in their first year of middle school might present unique adaptational profiles given that they are in the midst of a transitional year. The degree to which family and peer relationships influence sixth-graders’ emotional well-being and prosocial behavior might differ from influences on adolescents who already have made that transition. Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 123

REFERENCES

Amato, P. (1989). Family processes and the competence of adolescents and primary school children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 39-53. Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York:Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social and psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-276. Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 111-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 14. Emo- tional and social behavior (pp. 119-150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski, M., Polazi, L., Carlo, G., & Juhnke, C. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67, 974-992. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., Holgren, R., Maszk, P & Losoya, S. (1997). The relations of regulation and emotionality to resiliency and competent social functioning in elementary school children. Child Development, 68, 295-311. Feldman, S. S., & Gehring, T. M. (1988). Changing perceptions of family cohesion and power across adolescence. Child Development, 59, 1034-1045. Feldman, S. S., Rubenstein, J. L., & Rubin, C. (1988). Depressive affect and restraint in early adolescents: Relationships with family structure, family process, and friendship support. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 279-296. Ford, M. E. (1996). Motivational opportunities and obstacles associated with social responsibil- ity and caring behavior in school contexts. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social moti- vation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 126-153). New York: Cambridge University Press. Glyshaw, K., Cohen, L. H., & Towbes, L. C. (1989). Coping strategies and psychological distress: Perspective analyses of early and middle adolescence. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 17, 607-623. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19. Hampson, R. B. (1984). Adolescent prosocial behavior: Peer group and situational factors associated with helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 153-162. 124 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 1999

Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352-387). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hartup, W. W. (1992). Friendships and their developmental significance. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Contemporary issues in childhood social development (pp. 175-205). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 31, 897-906. Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral internalization: An information-processing approach. In E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 236-274). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Keefe, K., & Berndt, T. J. (1996). Relations of friendship quality to self-esteem in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 110-129. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1981). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mussen, P., Rutherford, E., Harris, S., & Keasey, C. (1970). Honesty and altruism among preado- lescents. Developmental Psychology, 3, 169-194. Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V.M., Carson, J. L., & Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contribution to peer competence among young children: The role of interactive and affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 107- 134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Originally published 1932). Romig, C., & Bakken, L. (1992). Intimacy development in middle adolescence: Its relationship to gender and family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 325-338. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Weinberger, D. A., Feldman, S. S., Ford, M. E., & Chastain, R. L. (1987). Construct validation of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078. Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173-182. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social support and adjustment in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202-209. Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. C. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209. Wentzel, K. R. & Erdley, C. A. (1993). Strategies for making friends: Relations to social behavior and peer acceptance in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 819-826. Wentzel, K. R., & Feldman, S. S. (1996). Relations of cohesion and power in family dyads to social and emotional adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 225-244. Wentzel, McNamara / BEHAVIOR IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 125

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. (1979). Child rearing and children’s prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319-330.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Kathryn R. Wentzel, Department of Human Development, Col- lege of Education, 3304 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742-1131, (301) 405-2810. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].