Correlates of Post-traumatic Growth Following a Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings - Correlates of post-traumatic growth (PTG) have been examined in the area of health psychology previously, with much focus on aspects of...     

Strength Training Effects on Muscle Forces and Contributions to Whole-Body Movement in Cerebral Palsy

Strength training is often prescribed for children with cerebral palsy (CP); however, links between strength gains and mobility are unclear. Nine children (age 14?±?3?years; GMFCS I-III) with spastic CP completed a 6-week strength-training program. Musculoskeletal gait simulations were generated for four children to assess training effects on muscle forces and function. There were increases in isometric joint strength, but no statistical changes in fast-as-possible walking speed or endurance after training. The walking simulations revealed changes in muscle forces and contributions to body center of mass acceleration, with greater forces from the hip muscles during walking most commonly observed. A progressive strength-training program can result in isometric and dynamic strength gains in children with CP, associated with variable mobility outcomes.     

Same clinic,different conceptions: Drug users’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of how stigma may affect clinical care

Stigma experienced by drug users by their healthcare professionals can be a barrier to treatment engagement, which in turn affects mortality and morbidity rates. Attribution theory suggests that stigma will be greatest whenever drug use is attributed to factors within personal control. Here, clients (n = 76) and healthcare professionals (n = 62) identified features that characterize good and bad clinical interactions, and responded to a vignette about a drug user who attributed his use to personal control or situational factors. Healthcare professionals completed the vignette and drug users gave their best guess of how healthcare professionals would react to this vignette. Clients and professionals held overlapping prototypes of clinical interactions. Clients overestimated both how negative healthcare professionals’ reactions would be, and the extent to which healthcare professionals’ reactions would accord with attribution theory. Despite healthcare professionals’ believing they are acting in nonstigmatizing ways, they may engender stigma in clinical situations more than they realize. Discrepancies between professionals’ hypothetical responses and clients’ anticipation of these responses are discussed in terms of the influence of self‐stigma and societal understandings of drug use and control. Attribution theory only offers a limited explanation for these discrepancies, because professionals’ beliefs about drug users are complex. Implications for theories of stigma and engagement with services are discussed, and the importance of clients’ anticipation of stigma is highlighted as a primary target for addressing treatment disengagement. Anti‐stigma campaigns may also benefit from changing their focus from individuals’ attributions to holistically addressing discrepant conceptions of treatment.     

Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact

Three experiments examined the effects of interactive visualizations and spatial abilities on a task requiring participants to infer and draw cross sections of a three-dimensional (3D) object. The experiments manipulated whether participants could interactively control a virtual 3D visualization of the object while performing the task, and compared participants who were allowed interactive control of the visualization to those who were not allowed control. In Experiment 1, interactivity produced better performance than passive viewing, but the advantage of interactivity disappeared in Experiment 2 when visual input for the two conditions in a yoked design was equalized. In Experiments 2 and 3, differences in how interactive participants manipulated the visualization were large and related to performance. In Experiment 3, non-interactive participants who watched optimal movements of the display performed as well as interactive participants who manipulated the visualization effectively and better than interactive participants who manipulated the visualization ineffectively. Spatial ability made an independent contribution to performance on the spatial reasoning task, but did not predict patterns of interactive behavior. These experiments indicate that providing participants with active control of a computer visualization does not necessarily enhance task performance, whereas seeing the most task-relevant information does, and this is true regardless of whether the task-relevant information is obtained actively or passively.     

Attributional Beliefs About the Controllability of Stigmatized Traits: Antecedents or Justifications of Prejudice?1

Correlational studies show that prejudiced people attribute stigmatized traits to controllable causes, and blame stigmatized groups for their own fate. Attribution theory argues that causal attributions cause prejudice, and that changes in attributional beliefs produce changes in attitudes. In contrast, the justification–suppression model describes attributions to controllable causes as justifications of pre‐existing prejudices. Study participants reported their attitudes toward 1 of 4 stigmatized groups, read information that manipulated their attributional beliefs, listed their thoughts, and reported their attitudes again. Supporting the suppression–justification model, initially prejudiced participants spontaneously produced more thoughts about the controllability of stigmatized identities. Refuting attribution theory, manipulating attributional beliefs had no effect on attitudes. Implications for applications of attribution theory to reduce prejudice are discussed.     

When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction

In 4 experiments, students received a lesson consisting of computer-based animation and narration or a lesson consisting of paper-based static diagrams and text. The lessons used the same words and graphics in the paper-based and computer-based versions to explain the process of lightning formation (Experiment 1), how a toilet tank works (Experiment 2), how ocean waves work (Experiment 3), and how a car's braking system works (Experiment 4). On subsequent retention and transfer tests, the paper group performed significantly better than the computer group on 4 of 8 comparisons, and there was no significant difference on the rest. These results support the static media hypothesis, in which static illustrations with printed text reduce extraneous processing and promote germane processing as compared with narrated animations.     

Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Whilst the same group differences can be explained in many ways, explanations of group differences tend to spontaneously figure the distinctive attributes of lower‐status groups against a background norm of high‐status groups’ attributes. We suggest that this asymmetry occurs in the explanations of scientists and laypeople who have been influenced by the history of ‘disciplinary power’ which works to disempower lower‐status people by making them visible to the human sciences. We argue that social groups who are habitually studied first in research programs, more commonly encountered social groups, and prototypical social groups are all less likely than their counterparts to be marked in spontaneous explanations of empirical group differences. We present evidence that groups who are explicitly mentioned in such explanations are assumed to be lower in power. We describe some limitations to current knowledge about such asymmetric explanations and suggest some directions for further research, including our thoughts about how to integrate existing findings with the possibility of formulating cognitive alternatives to the status quo among minority groups.