TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY AND “FAKING GOOD”: ARE STAFF TELLING US WHAT THEY THINK WE WANT TO HEAR?

Treatment acceptability refers to how acceptable various treatment alternatives are to individuals who are subjected to and who implement those treatments. While treatment-acceptability research increases in popularity, some have questioned its usefulness. In particular, Schwartz and Baer (1991) question whether staff might be telling us what we want to hear, analogous to the phenomenon of test-takers “faking good” while taking personality tests. In this study, we sought to investigate the possibility of such bias in treatment-acceptability ratings. Direct-care staff at a large residential facility were presented with a clinical vignette and five treatment options to rate. They also received three different types of instructions (standard, “fake good,” and “prompted honesty”) designed to determine whether biases in ratings would appear. Results indicate that, under these conditions, staff do not fake good, i.e., there were no differences across instructional conditions. Collapsing across conditions, staff did differ in their ratings on the five treatment alternatives. Reasons for current results and suggestions for further research are discussed.     

Violent behavior patterns on psychiatric wards

A study of 379 violent incidents between pairs of psychiatric inpatients during an eight-month period indicates a substantial number of patterned associations between assaulting patients and those struck. In addition, regularities are observed in these incidents between frequency of occurrence and spatiotemporal and other contextual factors. Taken in the aggregate, these relationships support enlargement of most current conceptualizations of the violent act in psychiatric settings, which focus almost exclusively upon physiologic and psychologic state changes within the identified initiator of violent acts.     

Individual differences in current events knowledge: Contributions of ability,personality, and interests

What accounts for individual differences in the sort of knowledge that people may draw on in everyday cognitive tasks, such as deciding whom to vote for in a presidential election, how to invest money in the stock market, or what team to bet on in a friendly wager? In a large sample of undergraduate students, we investigated correlates of individual differences in recently acquired knowledge of current events in domains such as politics, business, and sports. Structural equation modeling revealed two predictive pathways: one involving cognitive ability factors and the other involving two major nonability factors (personality and interests). The results of this study add to what is known about the sources of individual differences in knowledge and are interpreted in the context of theoretical conceptions of adult intelligence that emphasize the centrality and importance of knowledge (e.g., Ackerman, 1996; Cattell, 1971).     

Reflecting on Participatory,Action‐Oriented Research Methods in Community Psychology: Progress,Problems, and Paths Forward

This paper provides a critical reflection on participatory action research (PAR) methods as they pertain to community psychology. Following a brief review of the fundamental aspects of PAR, key developments in the field are examined. These developments include the redefinition of the research enterprise among groups such as Indigenous and consumer/survivor communities, challenges that attend the “project” framing of PAR, academic and practice context challenges, and important domains in which PAR methods need to become more engaged (e.g., social media and disenfranchised youth). Three illustrative case studies of programs of work in the areas of youth homelessness, consumer/survivor engagement, and Indigenous research are provided to illustrate these contemporary challenges and opportunities in the field. The authors make the argument that without an effort to reconsider and redefine PAR, moving away from the stereotypical PAR “project” frame, these methods will continue to be poorly represented and underutilized in community psychology.     

Toward a Positive Military Psychology

The present study used an informant method of psychiatric assessment to evaluate Saddam Hussein, and these results were compared to a posthumous assessment of Adolf Hitler. Eleven Iraqi adults who lived under Hussein's influence for a median of 24 years completed the Coolidge Axis II Inventory, a measure of 14 personality disorders. The mean consensus among the 11 raters was r = .57. It revealed that Hussein probably reached diagnostic threshold for the sadistic (T score M = 81.0), paranoid (T score M = 79.3), antisocial (T score M = 77.4), and narcissistic (T score M = 74.2) personality disorders. The correlation between the consensus profile for Hussein and a consensus profile of 5 Hitler experts was r = .79, indicating a very strong similarity between the two profiles. It was concluded that Saddam Hussein had many of the same personality disorders or their features as Adolf Hitler, although sadistic features were stronger in Hussein than Hitler. It appeared that a “Big Four” personality disorders constellation emerged for these two dictators, and they were sadistic, antisocial, paranoid, and narcissistic. It was also found that Hussein might have had some traits or features of paranoid schizophrenia. Implications for diplomacy and negotiations with persons with similar personality profiles are proffered.