Correction to: Basic psychological need satisfaction across the retirement transition: Changes and longitudinal associations with depressive symptoms

Motivation and Emotion - The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The foot note text has been overlapped with the article text. However, it is now correct and given...     

The Role of Supportive Parenting and Stress Reactivity in the Development of Self-Regulation in Early Childhood

Journal of Child and Family Studies - Maternal sensitivity and supportive discipline are important determinants of child self-regulation. Some evidence suggests that specific genetic or...     

Justifying Feasibility Constraints on Human Rights

It is a crucial question whether practicalities should have an impact in developing an applicable theory of human rights—and if, how (far) such constraints can be justified. In the course of the non-ideal turn of today’s political philosophy, any entitlements (and social entitlements in particular) stand under the proviso of practical feasibility. It would, after all, be unreasonable to demand something which is, under the given political and economic circumstances, unachievable. Thus, many theorist—particularly those belonging to the liberal camp—begin to question the very idea of social human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility. This new minimalism about human rights motivates an immanent critique arguing that even if we were to proceed from a liberal framework, we would still wind up with a justification of the full list of social human rights. In the first part of this article, I will present the central positions of the debate presented by Amartya Sen, Maurice Cranston and Pablo Gilabert. Initially arguing that a minimalism of human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility alone proves unjustifiable, however, I shall open up two further perspectives, which allow practical infeasibilities to become normatively determinate. Discussing contributions by James Griffin and Charles Beitz, I will defend the thesis that certain feasibility constraints on (social) human rights can be justified on the condition that they are grounded either in a normative idea of the appropriate implementation of these rights or in reflection of the practical function of a theory of human rights.     

Decoupling between physiological,self-reported,and expressed emotional responses in alexithymia

Alexithymia is characterized by difficulties identifying, describing, and expressing emotions and is associated with mental health problems involving emotion dysregulation. To understand the relationship between alexithymia and health, researchers have predominately examined group differences in physiological arousal and self-reported experience. The present study extends this research by examining differences in physiological arousal, self-reported experience, and observed expression. In addition to this between-subjects approach the present study examined within-person difference scores to better understand individual differences in decoupling between all three emotional response domains. Participants (N = 106; M = 18.00 years), classified as alexithymic (males = 17, females = 34) or non-alexithymic (males = 23, females = 32), gave an impromptu 3-min speech while measures of heart rate and galvanic skin response were continuously recorded. Participants completed self-report measures of self-conscious affect and their behavior was later coded for self-conscious affect. Alexithymic participants: (1) had significantly higher heart rate during baseline however physiological responses were indistinguishable during arousal and recovery, (2) experienced greater self-consciousness collapsing across the tasks, and (3) expressed more self-consciousness as a result of the speech. In addition, findings support the decoupling hypothesis. Alexithymic males experienced and expressed greater self-consciousness compared to their physiological arousal. Results are discussed in terms of the underlying mechanisms of alexithymia.     

The Implications of Adolescents’ Academic Word Knowledge for Achievement and Instruction

The purpose of the current study was to determine relationships between orthographic and morphological awareness of academic words and achievement across content areas. Participants (n = 256), diverse seventh and eighth graders, took three word knowledge measures; two standardized achievement measures were used as outcomes. Orthographic awareness of academic words explained variance in achievement, beyond overall breadth of vocabulary knowledge, with significant changes in R² ranging from 0.02 to 0.08. Morphological awareness of academic words explained variance in achievement, beyond overall breadth of vocabulary knowledge, with significant changes in R² ranging from 0.06 to 0.16.