Stress reappraisal during a mathematics competition: testing effects on cardiovascular approach-oriented states and exploring the moderating role of gender

Background and objectives: Effects of reappraising stress arousal during an interpersonal competition were tested on physiological functioning and performance. Additionally, the moderating role of gender was explored.

Design and method: Participants (N?=?279) were randomly assigned to a stress reappraisal, stress-is-debilitating, or a neutral control condition. Reappraisal materials educated participants about the adaptive benefits of stress, whereas stress-is-debilitating materials instructed participants to avoid stress. Control materials did not mention stress. Participants then competed against a gender-matched confederate on a 10-minute math performance task while cardiovascular reactivity was assessed. Participants were instructed to complete math problems as quickly and accurately as they could and were informed that a winner and loser would be determined by the resulting math scores.

Results: Reappraising stress arousal led to more adaptive challenge-like cardiovascular responses, but no condition effects were observed on math performance. Exploratory analyses revealed that reappraisal instructions were effective for improving physiological functioning and facilitating performance for men, but women were unaffected by the manipulation.

Conclusions: Reappraising stress arousal can improve physiological functioning during interpersonal competitions, but effects may be limited to men. Implications for future research are discussed.     

The unconscious significance of some motivational blockages in students at university

The relevance is explored of certain psychoanalytic formulations to motivational blockages encounted by university students with a general history of satisfactory progress. The process of counselling is examined with two clinical vignettes as examples.     

Legal and Ethical Considerations for Requiring Consent for Apnea Testing in Brain Death Determination

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed escalating legal and ethical challenges to the diagnosis of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). The legal tactic of demanding consent for the apnea test, if successful, can halt the DNC. However, US law is currently unsettled and inconsistent in this matter. Consent has been required in several trial cases in Montana and Kansas but not in Virginia and Nevada. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the legal and ethical bases for requiring consent before apnea testing and defend such a requirement by appealing to ethical and legal principles of informed consent and battery and the right to refuse medical treatment. We conclude by considering and rebutting two major objections to a consent requirement for apnea testing: (1) a justice-based objection to allocate scarce resources fairly and (2) a social utility objection that halting the diagnosis of brain death will reduce the number of organ donors.