Dietary planning,self-efficacy,and outcome expectancies play a role in an online intervention on fruit and vegetable consumption

Objective: An online intervention to improve fruit and vegetable (FV) intake examines the role of planning, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy and gender. Women are not only expected to eat more FV than men, but they are also expected to be more responsive to nutritional advice and benefit more from treatment.

Method: A two-arm digital intervention with 269 men and 395 women (M_age = 41.2, SD_age = 11.45; range: 19–66 years) was conducted in Italy, Spain and Greece, followed up at three and six months, comparing a static with a dynamic, feedback-intensive platform.

Results: Linear mixed models yielded an increase in FV consumption in both the dynamic and the static intervention arms. In men, outcome expectancies were positively related to follow-up FV intake. Dietary planning interacted with self-efficacy on behavioural outcomes.

Conclusion: FV intake increased overall, and being a woman and involvement in planning facilitated behaviour change. Women seemed to be more engaged in the dynamic platform resulting in a higher amount of planning. Initial motivation, as indicated by outcome expectancies, seemed to be beneficial for men. Self-efficacious individuals benefitted from their engagement in planning, but self-efficacy did not compensate for failing to plan.     

Different sides of the same conversation: Black and White partners differ in perceptions of interaction content

A positive interracial interaction can create a foundation for friendships, improved intergroup attitudes and reduced prejudice. Recent research has demonstrated that what people talk about in important. Here, two studies expand the interaction content model of interracial interactions to reveal that Black and White Americans perceive interaction content in similar and different ways. As expected, Black and White participants evaluated conversation topics along the same three dimensions, but differed in their perceptions of specific conversation topics. These convergences and differences emerged for pre‐generated (Study 1) and self‐generated (Study 2) topics. Factor analyses revealed that conversation attributes similarly distilled to the predicted underlying content dimensions of intimacy, valence, and controversy for Black and White Americans. However, Black individuals found interaction content, in general, to be more controversial, race‐related, enjoyable, and predictable than White individuals. Although both groups found race‐related content more controversial, Black individuals were less bothered by discussing race and found race‐related topics to be more predictable and enjoyable to discuss. These findings supported the interaction content model which may provide a framework for future research on interracial interactions. We conclude with the importance of considering differences in perceptions of interaction content, as well as suggestions for how intergroup interaction research could benefit from systematically incorporating such content.     

Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit

We examined the effect of deliberate mimicry on eliciting (accurate) information and cues to deceit. Mimicry is considered to facilitate cooperation and compliance in truth tellers, whereas liars are constrained to provide detail. We therefore expected truth tellers to be more detailed than liars, particularly after being mimicked. A total of 165 participants told the truth or lied about a meeting they attended. During the interview, an interviewer mimicked half of the participants. Truth tellers were more detailed than liars, but only in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Truth tellers also gave more accurate units of information than liars, and the difference was most pronounced in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Mimicry as a tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit fits well with the emerging ‘interviewing to detect deception’ literature, particularly in the ‘encouraging interviewees to say more’ approach. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

American Psychiatric Association: Position Statement on Firearm Access,Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services

The American Psychiatric Association, (“APA”), with more than 36,000 members at present, is the Nation's leading organization of physicians who specialize in psychiatry. APA provides for education and advocacy and develops policy through Position Statements. It promotes enhanced knowledge of particular topics relevant to psychiatric practice and patient care through Resource Documents. Since 1993, the APA has developed various positions and resource materials related to firearms and mental illness, incorporating evolving themes as new issues emerge. This paper reflects the APA's 2014 Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.     

The modulation of reward priority by top-down knowledge

Reward-associated features capture attention automatically and continue to do so even when the reward contingencies are removed. This profile has led to the hypothesis that rewards belong to a separate class of attentional biases that is neither typically top-down nor bottom-up. The goal of these experiments was to understand the degree to which top-down knowledge can modulate value-driven attentional capture within (a) the timecourse of a single trial and (b) when the reward contingencies change explicitly over trials. The results suggested that top-down knowledge does not affect the size of value-driven attentional capture within a single trial. There were clear top-down modulations in the magnitude of value-driven capture when reward contingencies explicitly changed, but the original reward associations continued to have a persistent bias on attention. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that reward associations bias attention through mechanisms separate from other top-down and bottom-up attentional biases.