Change in Maternal Stress for Families in Treatment for their Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Our objective was to predict change in maternal stress over the course of a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of two interventions for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD): Parent Management Training and Collaborative & Proactive Solutions. In a secondary analysis of data collected from this randomized clinical trial, we examined whether children’s self-reported positive relations with their parents impacted responsiveness to treatment, which in turn impacted maternal stress. One hundred thirty-four children and their parents (38.1% female, ages 7–14, M age?=?9.51, SD?=?1.77) were tracked across three time points: pre-treatment; one-week post-treatment; and six-month post-treatment. Hierarchical linear models tested change in children’s reports of positive relations with parents, clinician reports of ODD severity, and maternal reports of parenting stress. Models then tested multilevel mediation from positive relations with parents, through ODD severity, onto maternal stress. Hypothesized indirect effects were supported such that children’s reports of positive views toward parents uniquely predicted reductions in ODD severity over time, which in turn uniquely predicted reductions in maternal stress. Results highlight the promise of potential secondary benefits for parents following interventions for children with oppositional problems. Furthermore, results underscore the importance of the parent–child relationship as both a protective factor and as an additional target to complement interventions for child disruptive behaviors.     

Redefining unforgiveness: Exploring victims’ experiences in the wake of unforgiven interpersonal transgressions

This study explored victims’ experiences in the aftermath of unforgiven offenses. Semi-structured interviews with 13 individuals discussing two unforgiven offenses revealed considerable variability in the experiences of unforgiveness, suggesting that unforgiveness may be more multifaceted than previously believed. In addition to the negative emotions and rumination previously posited to characterize unforgiveness, novel themes emerged describing unforgiving cognitions (e.g., the offense is unforgiveable) and construals of the offender. Participants varied along each dimension, resulting in a range of outcomes (e.g., forgiveness, lingering personal distress, finding peace without forgiving). Implications for conceptualizing unforgiveness and counseling those who struggle with unforgiven offenses are discussed.     

A Review of Best Practice Recommendations for Text Analysis in R (and a User-Friendly App)

In recent decades, the amount of text available for organizational science research has grown tremendously. Despite the availability of text and advances in text analysis methods, many of these techniques remain largely segmented by discipline. Moreover, there is an increasing number of open-source tools (R, Python) for text analysis, yet these tools are not easily taken advantage of by social science researchers who likely have limited programming knowledge and exposure to computational methods. In this article, we compare quantitative and qualitative text analysis methods used across social sciences. We describe basic terminology and the overlooked, but critically important, steps in pre-processing raw text (e.g., selection of stop words; stemming). Next, we provide an exploratory analysis of open-ended responses from a prototypical survey dataset using topic modeling with R. We provide a list of best practice recommendations for text analysis focused on (1) hypothesis and question formation, (2) design and data collection, (3) data pre-processing, and (4) topic modeling. We also discuss the creation of scale scores for more traditional correlation and regression analyses. All the data are available in an online repository for the interested reader to practice with, along with a reference list for additional reading, an R markdown file, and an open source interactive topic model tool (topicApp; see https://github.com/wesslen/topicApp, https://github.com/wesslen/text-analysis-org-science, https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.15139/S3/R4W7ZS).     

Effects of exposure to alcohol‐related cues on racial discrimination

Prior research has shown that exposure to alcohol‐related images exacerbates expression of implicit racial biases, and that brief exposure to alcohol‐related words increases aggressive responses. However, the potential for alcohol cue exposure to elicit differential aggression against a Black (outgroup) relative to a White (ingroup) target—that is, racial discrimination—has never been investigated. Here, we found that White participants (N = 92) exposed to alcohol‐related words made harsher judgments of a Black experimenter who had frustrated them than participants who were exposed to nonalcohol words. These findings suggest that exposure to alcohol cues increases discriminatory behaviors toward Blacks.     

Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De‐implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings

The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de‐implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scientific endeavors. Given the infancy of de‐implementation, this conceptual narrative provides a definition and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de‐implemented. We identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary. Detailed, well‐documented examples illustrate each of the criteria. We describe de‐implementation frameworks, but also demonstrate how other existing implementation frameworks might be applied to de‐implementation research as a supplement. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of de‐implementation in the context of other stages of implementation, like sustainability and adoption; next steps for de‐implementation research, especially identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation in a systematic manner; and highlight special ethical considerations to advance the field of de‐implementation research.     

Choosing Your Words and Pictures Wisely: When Do Individuation Instructions Reduce the Cross‐Race Effect?

Recognition accuracy for faces of an individual's own race typically exceeds recognition accuracy for other‐race faces. The categorization–individuation model (Hugenberg, Young, Bernstein, & Sacco, 2010) attributes this cross‐race effect to motivation to encode distinctive features of own‐race faces but category defining features for other‐race faces. Two experiments using different stimuli tested hypotheses generated from this model with both Black and White participants. For White participants, instructions to individuate reduced the cross‐race effect in both studies but did not eliminate it in Study 1. Black participants did not exhibit the cross‐race effect in either study, but individuation instructions improved both their same‐race and other‐race sensitivity. The present quality of interracial contact moderated the relationship between instructions and other‐race sensitivity for both Black and White participants in Study 1 but not in Study 2. Overall, results provide mixed support for this social categorization model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Proverb preferences across cultures: Dialecticality or poeticality?

Peng and Nisbett (1999) claimed that members of Asian cultures show a greater preference than Euro-Americans for proverbs expressing paradox (so-called dialectical proverbs; e.g.,Too humble is half proud). The present research sought to replicate this claim with the same set of stimuli used in Peng and Nisbett’s Experiment 2 and a new set of dialectical and nondialectical proverbs that were screened to be comparably pleasing in phrasing. Whereas the proverbs were rated as more familiar and (in Set 1) more poetic by Chinese than by American participants, no group differences were found in relation to proverb dialecticality. Both the Chinese and Americans in our study rated the dialectical proverbs from Peng and Nisbett’s study as more likable, higher in wisdom, and higher in poeticality than the nondialectical proverbs. For Set 2, both groups found the dialectical proverbs to be as likable, wise, and poetic as the nondialectical proverbs. When poeticality was covaried out, dialectical proverbs were liked better than nondialectical proverbs across both stimulus sets by the Chinese and the Americans alike, and when wisdom was covaried out, the effect of dialecticality was reduced in both sets and groups. Our findings indicate that caution should be taken in ascribing differences in proverb preferences solely to cultural differences in reasoning.