The ‘thinking aloud’ process: a way forward in social work supervision

Within current neoliberal discourses, critical reflection provides opportunity for innovation in social work practice. This article describes a thinking aloud process used with supervisor–supervisee dyads in community-based child welfare social work to assist critical reflection via the use of open-ended questioning and inquiry. The strength of thinking aloud permitted a deeper appreciation of how the supervision session is utilised to reflect on practice and provided a learning tool within supervision. The feedback from the dyads concurred that thinking aloud assisted in stimulating reflection, developing solutions to the key issues discussed, and was transformative in recognising areas for future development. The process of thinking aloud supports the opportunity and space for the supervisor and supervisee to articulate meaning, critically develop insight, reconstruct, and transport this into future practice. Thinking aloud offers an example of how knowledge can be co-constructed by practitioners within practice and critical reflection captured within qualitative research approaches.     

Addressing Relationship Health Needs in Primary Care: Adapting the Marriage Checkup for Use in Medical Settings with Military Couples

The overall objective of this study was to pilot the Marriage Checkup (MC), a brief intervention for enhancing marital resiliency tailored to a military population, for use by internal behavioral health consultants (IBHCs) working in an integrated primary care clinic. The MC was revised to fit into the fast-paced environment of primary care (e.g., streamlined to fit within three 30-min appointments), and military-relevant material was added to the content. IBHCs working in primary care were then trained to offer the intervention. Thirty participants were enrolled in the study and completed a relationship checkup and one-month follow-up questionnaires. Analysis of post-test and one-month follow-up data showed statistically significant improvements in participants’ marital health compared to pre-treatment. The MC intervention appeared to be well received by both couples and IBHCs.     

Two Russellian Arguments for Acquaintance

Bertrand Russell [1912] argued that we are acquainted with our experiences. Although this conclusion has generated a lot of discussion, very little has been said about Russell's actual arguments for it. This paper aims to remedy that. I start by spelling out two Russellian arguments for acquaintance. Then I show that these arguments cannot both succeed. For if one is sound, the other isn't. Finally, I weigh our options with respect to these arguments, and defend one option in particular. I argue that we have good reason to believe that we can be, and sometimes are, acquainted with our experiences.     

Dualists needn’t be anti-criterialists (nor should they be)

Sometimes in philosophy one view engenders another. If you hold the first, chances are you hold the second. But it’s not always because the first entails the second. Sometimes the tie is less clear, less clean. One such tie is between substance dualism and anti-criterialism. Substance dualism is the view that people are, at least in part, immaterial mental substances. Anti-criterialism is the view that there is no criterion of personal identity through time. Most philosophers who hold the first view also hold the second. In fact, many philosophers just assume that substance dualists ought to, or perhaps even have to, accept anti-criterialism. But I aim to show that this assumption is baseless. Substance dualism doesn’t entail, suggest, support, or in any way motivate anti-criterialism, and anti-criterialism confers no benefit on dualism. Substance dualists have no special reason—and, indeed, no good reason at all—to accept anti-criterialism. Or so I shall argue. My aim isn’t to defend substance dualism, nor is it to attack anti-criterialism. My aim is to show that, contrary to a long-standing trend, dualists needn’t be anti-criterialists. Nor, as it will turn out, should they be.     

The Creation of the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS): An Investigation of Internal Consistency,Psychometric Properties,Validity, and Utility

Purpose

The current article reviews extant knowledge on courage and identifies a dimension of courage relevant to modern organizations, social courage, which is an (a) intentional, (b) deliberate, and (c) altruistic behavior that (d) may damage the actor’s esteem in the eyes of others. Through a multiple-study process, quantitative inferences are derived about social courage, and the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS) is created.

Design

Four studies using seven samples analyze the WSCS’s psychometric properties, internal consistency, method effects, discriminant validity, convergent validity, concurrent validity, and utility. Many of these are investigated or replicated in largely working adult samples.

Findings

Each aspect of the WSCS approaches or meets specified guidelines. Also, social courage is significantly related to organizational citizenship behaviors, and the construct may relate to many other important workplace outcomes.

Implications

The current study is among the first to quantitatively demonstrate the existence of courage as a construct, and the discovered relationships are the first statistical inferences about social courage. Future research and practice can now apply the WSCS to better understand the impact of social courage within the workplace.

Originality

Despite many attempts, no author has created a satisfactory measure of courage, and the current article presents the first successful measure through focusing on a particular courage dimension—social courage. Future research should take interest in the created measure, the WSCS, as its application can derive future inferences about courage and social courage.

     

The association between parent-child conflict and adolescent conduct problems over time: results from a longitudinal adoption study

A handful of prior adoption studies have confirmed that the cross-sectional relationship between child conduct problems and parent-child conflict at least partially originates in the shared environment. However, as the direction of causation between parenting and delinquency remains unclear, this relationship could be better explained by the adolescent's propensity to elicit conflictive parenting, a phenomenon referred to as an evocative gene-environment correlation. In the current study, the authors thus examined the prospective relationship between conduct problems and parent-child conflict in a sample of adoptive families. Participants included 672 adolescents in 405 adoptive families assessed at 2 time points roughly 4 years apart. Results indicated that parent-child conflict predicts the development of conduct problems, whereas conduct problems do not predict increases in parent-child conflict. Such findings suggest that evocative gene-environment correlations are highly unlikely to be an explanation of prior shared environmental effects during adolescence. Moreover, because the adolescents in this study do not share genes with their adoptive parents, the association between conduct problems and parent-child conflict is indicative of shared environmental mediation in particular. Implications of the findings are discussed.     

Availability of advance visual information constrains association-football goalkeeping performance during penalty kicks

A pressing concern within the literature on anticipatory perceptual-motor behaviour is the lack of clarity on the applicability of data, observed under video-simulation task constraints, to actual performance in which actions are coupled to perception, as captured during in-situ experimental conditions. We developed an in-situ experimental paradigm which manipulated the duration of anticipatory visual information from a penalty taker's actions to examine experienced goalkeepers' vulnerability to deception for the penalty kick in association football. Irrespective of the penalty taker's kick strategy, goalkeepers initiated movement responses earlier across consecutively earlier presentation points. Overall goalkeeping performance was better in non-deception trials than in deception conditions. In deception trials, the kinematic information presented up until the penalty taker initiated his/her kicking action had a negative effect on goalkeepers' performance. It is concluded that goalkeepers are likely to benefit from not anticipating a penalty taker's performance outcome based on information from the run-up, in preference to later information that emerges just before the initiation of the penalty taker's kicking action.     

Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment

The debate over whether ‘fair-play’ can serve as a justification for legal punishment has recently resumed with an exchange between Richard Dagger and Antony Duff. According to the fair-play theorist, criminals deserve punishment for breaking the law because in so doing the criminal upsets a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, and punishment rectifies this unfairness. Critics frequently level two charges against this idea. The first is that it often gives the wrong explanation of what makes crime deserving of punishment, since the wrongfulness of murder is not primarily about unfairness. The second is that it implies that all crimes deserve the same degree of punishment, because all crimes create the same degree of unfairness. These objections are viewed as revealing fatal flaws in the theory. Although Dagger attempts to meet these objections by drawing on political theory, Duff responds that this still draws upon the wrong kind of resources for meeting these objections. This paper argues that these two objections rest on a crucial mistake that has been overlooked by both the defenders and critics of fair-play. This mistake results from failing to distinguish between what justifies punishment as a response to crime (which requires a common element to all crime) and what justifies attaching particular penalties to crimes (which requires making distinctions in the severity of crime). The arguments presented will give reasons to consider fair-play as a viable justification for legal punishment.     

Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic versus rational approaches

Two basic approaches to explaining the nature of the mind are the rational and the mechanistic approaches. Rational analyses attempt to characterize the environment and the behavioral outcomes that humans seek to optimize, whereas mechanistic models attempt to simulate human behavior using processes and representations analogous to those used by humans. We compared these approaches with regard to their accounts of how humans learn the variability of categories. The mechanistic model departs in subtle ways from rational principles. In particular, the mechanistic model incrementally updates its estimates of category means and variances through error-driven learning, based on discrepancies between new category members and the current representation of each category. The model yields a prediction, which we verify, regarding the effects of order manipulations that the rational approach does not anticipate. Although both rational and mechanistic models can successfully postdict known findings, we suggest that psychological advances are driven primarily by consideration of process and representation and that rational accounts trail these breakthroughs.