The aim of this study is to examine differences in personality between a group of bullied victims and a non-bullied group. The 144 participants, comprising of 72 victims and a matched contrast group of 72 respondents, completed Goldberg's (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Significant differences emerged between victims and non-victims on four out of five personality dimensions. Victims tended to be more neurotic and less agreeable, conscientious and extravert than non-victims. However, a cluster analysis revealed that the victim sample can be divided into two personality groups. One cluster, which comprised 64% of the victim sample, do not differ from non-victims as far as personality is concerned. Hence, the results indicate that there is no such thing as a general victim personality profile. However, a small cluster of victims tended to be less extrovert, less agreeable, less conscientious, and less open to experience but more emotional unstable than victims in the major cluster and the control group. Further, both clusters of victims scored higher than non-victims on emotional instability, indicating that personality should not be neglected as being a factor in understanding the bullying phenomenon. 相似文献
Research to date has shown that health professionals often practice according to personal values, including values based on faith, and that these values impact medicine in multiple ways. While some influence of personal values are inevitable, awareness of values is important so as to sustain beneficial practice without conflicting with the values of the patient. Detecting when own personal values, whether based on a theistic or atheistic worldview, are at work, is a daily challenge in clinical practice. Simultaneously ethical guidelines of tone-setting medical associations like American Medical Association, the British General Medical Council and Australian Medical Association have been updated to encompass physicians’ right to practice medicine in accord with deeply held beliefs. Framed by this context, we discuss the concept of value-neutrality and value-based medical practice of physicians from both a cultural and ethical perspective, and reach the conclusion that the concept of a completely value-neutral physician, free from influence of personal values and filtering out value-laden information when talking to patients, is simply an unrealistic ideal in light of existing evidence. Still we have no reason to suspect that personal values, whether religious, spiritual, atheistic or agnostic, should hinder physicians from delivering professional and patient-centered care.
The human aptitude for imitation and social learning underpins our advanced cultural practices. While social learning is a valuable evolutionary survival strategy, blind copying does not necessarily facilitate survival. Copying from the majority allows individuals to make rapid judgments on the value of a trait, based on its frequency. This is known as the majority bias: an individual's tendency to copy the behavior elicited by the largest number of individuals in a population. An alternative approach is to follow those who are the most proficient. While there is evidence that children do show both processes, no study has directly pitted them against each other. To do this, in the current experiment 36 children aged between 4 and 5 years watched live actors demonstrate, as a group or individually, how to open novel puzzle boxes. Children exhibited a bias to the majority when group and individual methods were successful, but favored the individual if the group method was unsuccessful. Affiliating children with the unsuccessful majority group did not impact on this pattern. 相似文献