Relating Callous-Unemotional Traits to Physically Restrictive Treatment Measures Among Child Psychiatric Inpatients

We examined the association of callous-unemotional (C/U) traits with the rates of seclusion and restraint among a sample of child psychiatric inpatients (N = 101). Analyses focused on the incremental value of C/U traits as a predictor over and above the influence of other risk factors for physically restrictive treatment measures found in previous research, including gender, age, verbal intelligence, ethnicity, the diagnosis of a conduct disorder or an oppositional defiant disorder, maltreatment history, and the other dimensions of psychopathy (i.e., narcissism and impulsivity). Results of hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that younger age and C/U traits predicted seclusion rates, whereas only C/U traits predicted restraint rates. The discussion of these findings focuses on the necessity of developing effective intervention programs for inpatient children with prominent C/U traits, to help forestall the physically dangerous behavior that necessitates a seclusion or restraint.     

Power, individuation, and the cross-race recognition deficit

The well-known cross-race effect (CRE) in facial recognition is observed as better recognition for faces of one’s own race than faces of another race. Across two experiments, this very robust phenomenon was attenuated via an increase in cross-race (CR) recognition when CR targets were perceived as wielding power either because of their occupational roles (Experiment 1) or the behaviors in which they engaged (Experiment 2). Furthermore, evidence in Experiment 2 indicates that neither target stereotypicality nor target valence can easily explain the observed increase in CR recognition. These results conform closely to predictions derived from a social-cognitive model of the cross-race effect.     

Analogy Events: How Examples are Used During Problem Solving

In attempting to fit a model of analogical problem solving to protocol data of students solving physics problems, several unexpected observations were made. Analogies between examples and exercises (a form of case-based reasoning) consisted of two distinct types of events. During an initialization event, the solver retrieved an example, set up a mapping between it and the problem, and decided whether the example was useful. During a transfer event, the solver inferred something about the problem's solution. Many different types of initialization and transfer events were observed. Poor solvers tended to follow the example verbatim, copying each solution line over to the problem. Good solvers tried to solve the problem themselves, but referred to the example when they got stuck, or wanted to check a step, or wanted to avoid a detailed calculation. Rather than learn from analogies, both Good and Poor solvers tended to repeat analogies at subsequent similar situations. A revised version of the model is proposed (but not yet implemented) that appears to be consistent with all the findings observed in this and other studies of the same subjects.     

Building Blocks to Portability: Culmination of the 20/20 Initiative

The profession of counseling has now endorsed a consensus licensure title and scope of practice for all U.S. states and jurisdictions. This article describes the development of the title and scope of practice through the Building Blocks to Portability Project of the 20/20: A Vision for the Future of Counseling initiative. Outcomes and implications of this final stage of the 20/20 project intended to ease interstate licensure portability are presented.     

Knowledge as a Non‐Normative Relation

According to a view I’ll call Epistemic Normativism (EN), knowledge is normative in the same sense in which paradigmatically normative properties like justification are normative. This paper argues against EN in two stages and defends a positive non‐normativist alternative. After clarifying the target in §1, I consider in §2 some arguments for EN from the premise that knowledge entails justification (the “Entailment Thesis”). I first raise some worries about inferring constitution from entailment. I then rehearse the reasons why some epistemologists reject the Entailment Thesis and argue that a non‐normativist picture provides the best explanation of all the intuitions surrounding this thesis, favorable and unfavorable. On this picture, human knowledge is a structured non‐normative complex that has as one of its parts a justification‐making property, analogous in role to good‐making properties like pleasurableness. After giving three arguments against EN in §3 and answering an objection in §4, I turn in §5 to further develop the positive view sketched in §2. In §6, I take stock and conclude.     

Escalation and Regulation of Emotional Arousal in Couples Predicts Relationship Satisfaction Concurrently and 25 Years Later

Relationship distress and divorce are major risk factors for the development or exacerbation of psychopathology and psychosocial impairments. Given that heightened negative emotions within couples’ interactions may portend negative relationship outcomes, it is critical to understand how emotions unfold across a conversation and how partners may influence each other’s immediate emotional experiences. This study examined whether these regulatory dynamics within one interaction predicted relationship satisfaction concurrently and 25 years later. Vocally‐encoded emotional arousal (f₀) was measured during couples’ (N = 25 couples) conversations about a relationship issue. Across different analytical strategies, results demonstrate that one partner’s f₀ dynamics had immediate and long‐term associations with the other partner’s satisfaction. Partners were less satisfied if the other partner (a) expressed higher f₀ overall and (b) escalated more in f₀ across the conversation. Yet, partners were more satisfied when their f₀ escalated across the conversation. Also, women specifically were more satisfied if their f₀ remained elevated longer before regulating back to their emotional baseline. Thus, higher f₀ was associated with higher satisfaction in the same partner, but associated with less satisfaction in the other partner—particularly when these emotions come from women. It may be that partners have to decide whether to prioritize expressing their emotions fully or limit expression in the service of their partner’s happiness. These findings challenge us to think of ways to address this “win–lose” scenario so that couples can balance both partners’ emotional needs and preserve relationship quality across the life span.