Is It Worth Lying For? Physiological and Emotional Implications of Recalling Deceptive Affection

This investigation explored the risks of affectionate expressions in romantic relationships by examining the physiological and emotional implications of recalled expressed deceptive affectionate messages to romantic partners. Ninety‐nine participants were assigned to one of three conditions: deceptive affection, honest affection, or plans with a friend (control). Results indicate that individuals' blood pressure and heart rates are not differentially influenced when recalling deceptive affection compared to honest affection or common communication. Similarly, there were no differences in feelings of guilt and shame based on the motive for the deceptive expression. Posthoc analyses compared affectionate conditions (deceptive and honest) to the control condition and revealed no significant physiological differences. Implications for theory, methodological comparisons, and future research are discussed.     

Children's understanding of equity in the context of inequality

In the context of a pre‐existing resource inequality, the concerns for strict equality (allocating the same number of resources to all recipients) conflict with the concerns for equity (allocating resources to rectify the inequality). This study demonstrated age‐related changes in children's (3–8 years old, N = 133) ability to simultaneously weigh the concerns for equality and equity through the analysis of children's judgements, allocations, and reasoning in the context of a pre‐existing inequality. Three‐ to 4‐year‐olds took equity into account in their judgements of allocations, but allocated resources equally in a behavioural task. In contrast, 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds rectified the inequality in their allocations, but judged both equitable and equal allocations to be fair. It was not until 7–8 years old that children focused on rectifying the inequality in their allocations and judgements, as well as judged equal allocations less positively than equitable allocations, thereby demonstrating a more complete understanding of the necessity of rectifying inequalities. The novel findings revealed age‐related changes from 3 to 8 years old regarding how the concerns for equity and equality develop, and how children's judgements, allocations, and reasoning are coordinated when making allocation decisions.     

Lifestyle interventions in the treatment of childhood overweight: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Evaluating the efficacy of pediatric weight loss treatments is critical. OBJECTIVE: This is the first meta-analysis of the efficacy of RCTs comparing pediatric lifestyle interventions to no-treatment or information/education-only controls. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. STUDY SELECTION: Fourteen RCTs targetting change in weight status were eligible, yielding 19 effect sizes. DATA EXTRACTION: Standardized coding was used to extract information on design, participant characteristics, interventions, and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: For trials with no-treatment controls, the mean effect size was 0.75 (k = 9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52-0.98) at end of treatment and 0.60 (k = 4, CI = 0.27-0.94) at follow-up. For trials with information/education-only controls, the mean ES was 0.48 (k = 4, CI = 0.13-0.82) at end of treatment and 0.91 (k = 2, CI = 0.32-1.50) at follow-up. No moderator effects were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle interventions for pediatric overweight are efficacious in the short term with some evidence for extended persistence. Future research is required to identify moderators and mediators and to determine the optimal length and intensity of treatment required to produce enduring changes in weight status.     

Social reasoning about ‘second‐shift’ parenting

The present study investigated children's and adolescents’ social reasoning about parenting roles in the home, specifically ‘second‐shift parenting’ by a mother or father. Surveys were administered to children (age 10) and adolescents (age 13), nearly evenly divided by gender (N= 200) in which two hypothetical scenarios were evaluated. Participants were asked to evaluate and justify second‐shift parenting arrangements for the family overall, for the parent in the role, and for the child in the family. Results showed that participants expected mothers rather than fathers to take on the second‐shift role, and second‐shift parenting was evaluated as more unfair for fathers than for mothers. Personal choice reasoning was used for justifying arrangements for the second‐shift parent and moral reasoning was used for justifying arrangements for the child. Social reasoning about the context of parental caretaking roles was multifaceted and varied by age and gender of participant more so than by self‐reported personal family arrangements.