Prosocial rule breaking,ingroups and social norms: Parental decision-making about COVID-19 rule breaking in the UK

The British public generally adhered to COVID-19-related restrictions, but as the pandemic drew on, it became challenging for some populations. Parents with young children were identified as a vulnerable group. We collected rich, mixed-methods survey data from 99 UK-based parents (91 mothers) of children under 12, who described their lockdown transgressions. Household mixing was the most prevalent broken rule. Template analysis found that rule breaking was driven by ‘ingroup-level’ prosocial motivations to protect the mental and social health of family and loved ones, and that parents were ‘engaged’ decision-makers who underwent careful deliberation when deciding to break rules, making trade-offs, bending rules, mitigating risks, reaching consensus, and reacting to perceived rule injustices. Cumulative link models found that the perceived reasonableness of rule violations was predicted by social norms. Rules were broken by parents not for antisocial reasons, but for ‘ingroup-level’ prosocial reasons, linked to supporting loved ones.     

Running with emotion: When affective content hampers working memory performance

This study tested the hypothesis that affective content may undermine rather than facilitate working memory (WM) performance. To this end, participants performed a running WM task with positive, negative and neutral words. In typical running memory tasks, participants are presented with lists of unpredictable length and are asked to recall the last three or four items. We found that accuracy with affective words decreased as lists lengthened, whereas list length did not influence recall of neutral words. We interpreted this pattern of results in terms of a limited resource model of WM in which valence represents additional information that needs to be manipulated, especially in the context of difficult trials.     

Guiding others for their own good: Action orientation is associated with prosocial enactment of the implicit power motive

Prior research has repeatedly documented how people who are implicitly motivated by power motives may hurt other people’s interests. However, people may also enact the implicit power motive (nPower) in a prosocial manner. Using an Operant Motive Test, the authors differentiated five enactment strategies within nPower and investigated personality antecedents and personal benefits of a prosocial enactment strategy. Two studies found that demand-related action orientation (i.e., ability to self-regulate positive affect) was associated with prosocial enactment of nPower. Furthermore, prosocial enactment of nPower was associated with a higher explicit power motive among future teachers (Study 1) and future psychologists (Study 2). Finally, there was an indirect effect of action orientation through the prosocial enactment of nPower on the explicit power motive (Studies 1 and 2) and, in turn, on well-being (Study 2). Our integration of motivation and self-regulation research (the “what” and “how” of goal striving) helps to better understand the dual nature of power motives.     

Emotional health,support, and self‐efficacy in young adults with a history of language impairment

Children and adolescents with language impairment (LI) are at risk of emotional health difficulties. However, less is known about whether these difficulties continue into adulthood for this group, or about the potential role of environmental resources (e.g., social support) or internal resources (e.g., self‐efficacy). This study investigates emotional health in 81 adults with a history of developmental LI (aged 24) compared with 87 age‐matched peers (AMPs) using Beck Inventories. Social support and self‐efficacy measures were examined as predictors. The results were fourfold: (1) adults with LI had higher levels of emotional health problems; (2) whilst the availability of social support was similar across groups, people with LI received more help from others compared to peers; (3) social support was not significantly related to emotional health in those with LI – in contrast, for AMPs, uptake of support indicated poorer emotional health; (4) self‐efficacy was the strongest predictor of emotional health in both groups and fully mediated the relationship between language and emotional health (no moderation by group). This cross‐sectional study has implications for concurrent factors that might affect emotional health outcomes for children and young people with and without LI.     

A Neuropsychologist’s Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines

There is increasing impetus to improve the quality of research and scientific writing. Systematic reviews provide Class 1 research evidence, are based upon an established rigor and communicate results in a comprehensive manner, and are therefore particularly relevant to clinicians and researchers. Clinician requirements for quality systematic reviews are twofold: to keep up to date with research and to make informed decisions including those required for diagnoses, disease or risk assessment, and treatment. Researchers rely upon quality systematic reviews to compete for diminishing research funds, prove efficacy for intervention trials, and to meet increasing demand for evidence based intervention. However, insufficient systematic reviews are undertaken, and the methodological rigor and quality are often variable. The aim of this article is to guide researchers through the iterative systematic review process in order to improve quality and thereby increase publication rates. The step by step guide provides a road map through the EQUATOR network and practical suggestions in order to meet the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009) as well as encouraging high standards through the use of quality rating scales. Lastly, information is provided to encourage quantitative analysis to improve the synthesis of results and qualitative interpretation, such as calculating effect sizes or conducting a meta-analyses as the ultimate goal of a systematic review.