Structural Injustice and Massively Shared Obligations

It is often argued that our obligations to address structural injustice are collective in character. But what exactly does it mean for ‘ordinary citizens’ to have collective obligations vis‐à‐vis large‐scale injustice? In this article, I propose to pay closer attention to the different kinds of collective action needed in addressing some of these structural injustices and the extent to which these are available to large, unorganised groups of people. I argue that large, dispersed, and unorganised groups of people are often in a position to perform distributive collective actions. As such, ordinary citizens can have massively shared obligations to address structural injustice through distributive action, but, ultimately, such obligations are ‘collective’ only in a fairly weak sense.     

Patient Co-Participation in Narrative Medicine Curricula as a Means of Engaging Patients as Partners in Healthcare: A Pilot Study Involving Medical Students and Patients Living with HIV

Journal of Medical Humanities - This paper describes a pilot study of a new model for narrative medicine training, “community-based participatory narrative medicine” (CBPNM), which...     

Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview (SASII): development, reliability, and validity of a scale to assess suicide attempts and intentional self-injury

The authors describe the development of the Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview (SASII), an instrument designed to assess the factors involved in nonfatal suicide attempts and intentional self-injury. Using 4 cohorts of participants, authors generated SASII items and evaluated them with factor and content analyses and internal consistency statistics. The final measure was assessed for reliability and validity with collateral measures. The SASII assesses variables related to method, lethality and impulsivity of the act, likelihood of rescue, suicide intent or ambivalence and other motivations, consequences, and habitual self-injury. The SASII was found to have very good interrater reliability and adequate validity.     

Efficiency of visual information processing in children at-risk for dyslexia: habituation of single-trial ERPs

To investigate underlying learning mechanisms in relation to the development of dyslexia, event-related potentials to visual standards were recorded in five-year-old pre-reading children at-risk for familial dyslexia (n=24) and their controls (n=14). At the end of second grade the children aged 8 years were regrouped into three groups according to literacy level and risk factor. Single-trial analyses revealed N1 habituation in the normal-reading controls, but not in the normal-reading at-risks, and a N1 amplitude increase in the group of poor-reading at-risks and poor-reading controls. No P3 habituation was found in either group. The normal-reading at-risk group exhibited the longest N1 and P3 latencies, possibly compensating for their reduced neuronal activity during initial information extraction. In contrast, the poor-reading group only showed prolonged P3, and their increase in (initial small) N1 amplitude together with normal N1 latencies, suggests inefficient processing in an early time window, which might explain automatisation difficulties in dyslexic readers.     

Comparing judgments of stuttering made by students, clinicians, and highly experienced judges

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare judgments of stuttering made by students and clinicians with previously available judgments made by highly experienced judges in stuttering. Method: On two occasions, 41 university students and 31 speech-language pathologists judged the presence or absence of stuttering in each of 216 audiovisually recorded 5-s intervals of the speech of adults who stutter. Intrajudge and interjudge agreement were calculated, and comparisons were made to judgments previously made about the same recordings by 10 highly experienced judges of stuttering. Results: Students and clinicians showed similar and relatively high levels of intrajudge and interjudge agreement, but both students and clinicians identified less than half as much stuttering as the highly experienced judges had identified. Conclusions: These results replicate previous findings of high agreement coexisting with low accuracy in students’ judgments of stuttering, extending those findings to show that similar problems are evident in judgments made by practicing clinicians. Implications include the need for explicit stuttering judgment training programs for both students and practicing clinicians.

Educational objectives: After reading this article, the reader will be able to: (1) describe different methods for identifying stuttering and possible problems associated with each method; (2) describe two different methods for reporting interjudge reliability; (3) describe how the identification of stuttering differs for student, clinician, and highly experienced judges.     

Toward a formal theory of flexible spatial behavior: geometric category biases generalize across pointing and verbal response types

Three experiments tested whether geometric biases--biases away from perceived reference axes--reported in spatial recall tasks with pointing responses generalized to a recognition task that required a verbal response. Seven-year-olds and adults remembered the location of a dot within a rectangle and then either reproduced its location or verbally selected a matching choice dot from a set of colored options. Results demonstrated that geometric biases generalized to verbal responses; however, the spatial span of the choice set influenced performance as well. These data suggest that the same spatial memory process gives rise to both response types in this task. Simulations of a dynamic field model buttress this claim. More generally, these results challenge accounts that posit separate spatial systems for motor and verbal responses.     

Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action

Three studies examined non-Aboriginal Australians' guilt and anger about their ingroup's advantage over structurally disadvantaged Aborigines. Study 1 showed that participants who perceived their ingroup as relatively advantaged perceived this inequality as unfair and felt guilt and anger about it. Anger, and to a lesser degree guilt, predicted the willingness to engage in political action regarding ingroup advantage. Study 2 showed both guilt and anger to be relatively self-focused because both were associated with appraising the ingroup's (rather than the government's) discrimination as responsible for ingroup advantage. Study 3 examined on participants especially willing to engage in political action to bring about systemic compensation to Aborigines. Anger about ingroup advantage was a potent predictor. Although guilt was associated with the abstract goal of systemic compensation, guilt did not explain willingness for political action. Results underline the importance of examining specific group-based emotions in intergroup relations.     

Risky assessments: participant suicidality and distress associated with research assessments in a treatment study of suicidal behavior

The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of self-reported suicidality and distress during research assessments in a sample of 63 women meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder and current and chronic suicidality. The risk management protocol we used during the two-year study period (University of Washington Risk Assessment Protocol; UWRAP) is described. Results indicated that changes in suicidality following assessments were small and relatively infrequent, and were just as likely to reflect decreases in suicidality as increases (17.5% versus 16.4% of sessions, respectively). Further, longitudinal analyses indicated that changes in suicidality became increasingly rare over the course of the 2-year study. Ratings of distress were more changeable than suicidality, underscoring the need for separate measurement of these constructs when assessing risk. With the aid of the UWRAP, our assessors judged 15 participants as high-risk status in 28 assessment sessions (3.7% of all sessions). In comparison to the rest of the sample, these individuals were of significantly greater clinical severity as measured by the HRSD 17-item, GAF scores, number and severity of previous suicide attempts, and number of previous psychiatric hospitalizations. Low-intensity risk intervention strategies (e.g., validating participant's feelings) were typically sufficient to reduce risk in these participants. Overall, our findings indicate that research with highly suicidal individuals can be done safely with the use of well-trained assessors and an appropriate crisis management protocol.