Response expectancy versus response hope in predicting birth‐related emotional distress and pain

Response expectancies and response hopes have been shown to be two distinct constructs with important implications for nonvolitional outcomes. More specifically, studies show that response expectancies: (1) are sufficient to cause nonvolitional outcomes, (2) are not mediated by other psychological variables, and (3) are self‐confirming while seemingly automatic. A new programmatic research line has differentiated between people's response expectancies and their response hopes regarding nonvolitional outcomes and showed that even if response hope and response expectancy are separate constructs, they are not unrelated. These concepts have not yet been studied in pregnant women. Moreover, determining the causal factors that best explain the variance of emotional distress and pain in pregnancy is of great importance. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the interrelations between response expectancy and response hope in pregnant women with respect to (1) emotional distress prior to giving birth and (2) pain during giving birth. Additionally, self‐reported labor hours were analyzed as a secondary outcome. Results show that response expectancy for pain directly predicts pain, and that the discrepancy between response hopes and response expectancies is a strong predictor of investigated outcomes. Thus, our results support the idea that preventive psychological interventions for pregnant women should emphasize adjusting response expectancies and response hopes regarding the pain and emotional distress associated with giving birth. We believe that the results have both theoretical and practical implications and the topic deserves further investigation.     

Counterfactual closeness and predicted affect

Empirical research on counterfactual thinking has found a closeness effect: people report higher negative affect if an actual outcome is close to a better counterfactual outcome. However, it remains unclear what actually is a “close” miss. In three experiments that manipulate close counterfactuals, closeness effects were found only when closeness was unambiguously defined either with respect to a contrasted alternative, or with respect to a categorical boundary. In a real task people failed to report greater negative affect when encountering a close numerical miss, while they predicted greater negative affect hypothetically. These results show that counterfactual closeness effects on affect depend on closeness being accessible and unambiguously defined.     

Stigmatization,Repair, or Undesirable Side Effect of Tolerance? Being Clear About What We Study and Target for Intervention

The terms prejudice and stigmatization tend to be overused and incorrectly applied to normal social control processes and to certain negative side effects of social tolerance. The author proposes that the evolutionary origins of social control stem from the need to repair disturbed relationships in a small group of kin-related individuals without engaging in stigmatization. This perspective results in a comprehensive classification of deviant conditions and their motivational implications. Dependent on type of deviance, situation, and culture, activation of the psychological mechanisms involved in repair may also result in stigmatization or tolerance. Practical implications for stigma prevention and reduction are discussed.     

Group therapy: The Elgin plan

Pastoral Psychology -     

Self-Prophecy Effects and Voter Turnout: An Experimental Replication

Psychological research has found that being asked to predict one's future actions can bring about subsequent behavior consistent with the prediction but different from what would have occurred had no prediction been made. In a 1987 study, Greenwald, Carnot, Beach, and Young induced an increase in voting behavior by means of such a "self-prophecy" effect: Undergraduates who were asked to predict whether they would vote in an upcoming election were substantially more likely to go to the polls than those who had not been asked for a prediction. This paper reports on a replication of the Greenwald study conducted among a larger group of respondents more representative of the American electorate. No evidence was found that self-prophecy effects increase voter turnout.