The Gender Congruence and Life Satisfaction Scale (GCLS): Development and validation of a scale to measure outcomes from transgender health services

Background: It is vital that the treatment offered at transgender health services can be evaluated to ensure a high quality of care. However, the tools currently used to evaluate treatment at transgender health services are limited by mainly focusing on mental health or because they have been developed for binary transgender people only. This study therefore aimed to develop and validate a tool that addresses these limitations. The Gender Congruence and Life Satisfaction Scale (GCLS) was developed through reviewing the literature, conducting interviews with transgender people, and holding discussions with experts working in transgender healthcare. An initial pool of items was developed and feedback on these was obtained. The tool was then validated.

Method: For the validation of the tool, a total of 789 participants (451 transgender [171 transgender females, 147 transgender males, 133 people identifying as non-binary], and 338 cisgender [254 females, 84 males]) were recruited from the United Kingdom to test the factor structure and validity of the GCLS.

Results: Exploratory factor analysis retained 38 items which formed seven subscales (psychological functioning; genitalia; social gender role recognition; physical and emotional intimacy; chest; other secondary sex characteristics; and life satisfaction). These seven subscales were found to have good internal consistency and convergent validity. The GCLS was also found to be capable of discriminating between groups (e.g., people who have and have not undergone gender affirming medical interventions). Transgender and cisgender subscale norms are provided for the GCLS.

Conclusion: The GCLS is a suitable tool to use with the transgender population to measure health-related outcomes for both clinical and research purposes.     

Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

This article introduces a model of the internalisation of normative social harmdoing: the MINSOH. This model seeks to explain how group members internalise harmful social norms such that they personally endorse their groups' normative actions. To this aim, the MINSOH integrates two divergent yet complementary theoretical perspectives: self-determination theory and the social identity approach. These perspectives differ in their basic assumptions about the possibility for harm to become internalised, yet when integrated, they provide a powerful account of how harmdoing can become internalised. The MINSOH proposes specific conditions under which harmful normative actions become accepted by group members. This article outlines multiple self-determined motivations for harmdoing and discrete group processes that enable harmdoing to be internalised and autonomously enacted, and reviews factors that facilitate (i.e., strong/unique/comparative social identification; endorsement of ideological justifications) and block the internalisation process (presence of multiple identities/diverging norms; inclusive superordinate identity). Directions for future research are then discussed.     

Searching high and low: domestic dogs’ understanding of solidity

Animal Cognition - Physical reasoning appears central to understanding how the world works, suggesting adaptive function across the animal kingdom. However, conclusive evidence for inferential...     

Explanation and verbalization in a computer-assisted search task

Three experiments examine the effects of two different forms of explanation on assisted performance on a complex search task. The task involves determining which of a set of factories is responsible for polluting a river by testing the river for the presence or absence of various pollutants. All subjects receive computer suggestions as to which pollutants they should test for. In addition, some subjects receive an explanation of the principle according to which the advice program works. Two forms of explanation are compared. Experiment 1 shows that subjects who are allowed to ask “why” each computer recommendation is made perform significantly better than those who are provided with a block text of explanation at the start of each trial. Experiment 2 shows that the latter type of explanation is not completely ineffective, however. Subjects who are required to verbalize following the single explanation perform significantly better than do subjects who are required to verbalize but who have not received any form of explanation. Finally, Experiment 3 shows that subjects who receive the multiple “why” explanations or the explanation/verbalization combination maintain a superior performance level on subsequent unaided trials.