Ideology,Affect, Semiotics: Towards a Non-personal Theory of Personality

Personality theories, as Giordano (2014) argues, often treat Western versions of the self as having universal import. Eastern notions of self, however, offer a dramatically different basis for thinking about what personality might be. This paper, nonetheless, seeks to offer a general framework for theorizing about the epiphenomenon of personality in any culture, asserting that it is an effect of specific histories of ideological practices, semiotic networks and systems, and affect, which engage each other in dialogic and dialectical ways. The interactions of these factors, guided by ideology, regularize behavior and affective dynamics, largely in non-personal ways. Subjects are produced and reproduced from these complex interactions, which are situationally specific and simultaneously transpersonal. The subjects formed through these interactions are the basis for the folk psychology of personality, which treats the transient, varying effects of these interactions as more or less reified qualities that form a basis for the construction of selfhood, however conceived.     

Childhood ADHD and Executive Functioning: Unique Predictions of Early Adolescent Depression

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology - Given the increasing prevalence of adolescent depression, identification of its early predictors and elucidation of the mechanisms underlying its...     

Reactions to male-favouring versus female-favouring sex differences: A pre-registered experiment and Southeast Asian replication

Two studies investigated (1) how people react to research describing a sex difference, depending on whether that difference favours males or females, and (2) how accurately people can predict how the average man and woman will react. In Study 1, Western participants (N = 492) viewed a fictional popular-science article describing either a male-favouring or a female-favouring sex difference (i.e., men/women draw better; women/men lie more). Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favouring differences, judging the findings to be less important, less credible, and more offensive, harmful, and upsetting. Participants predicted that the average man and woman would react more positively to sex differences favouring their own sex. This was true of the average woman, although the level of own-sex favouritism was lower than participants predicted. It was not true, however, of the average man, who – like the average woman – reacted more positively to the female-favouring differences. Study 2 replicated these findings in a Southeast Asian sample (N = 336). Our results are consistent with the idea that both sexes are more protective of women than men, but that both exaggerate the level of same-sex favouritism within each sex – a misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.     

Does Reducing Male Domination in Teams Attenuate or Intensify the Harmful Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Women's Job Satisfaction? A Test of Competing Hypotheses

This study tested competing theoretical predictions surrounding the moderating effect of male domination in teams on the relation between women's perceptions of gender discrimination and their job satisfaction. Using archival data from an all-female sample of active military personnel (n = 3,015) comprising 321 work teams, which fell on a continuum from less male dominated to more male dominated, we found that the extent to which teams were male dominated moderated the negative link between perceived gender discrimination and job satisfaction, such that perceptions of discrimination were more negatively related to job satisfaction for women working in teams that were less male dominated than for those working in teams that were more male-dominated. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for research and practice and highlight several avenues for future research.     

Development and Pilot Testing of a Decision Aid for Genomic Research Participants Notified of Clinically Actionable Research Findings for Cancer Risk

Germline genomic testing is increasingly used in research to identify genetic causes of disease, including cancer. However, there is evidence that individuals who are notified of clinically actionable research findings have difficulty making informed decisions regarding uptake of genetic counseling for these findings. This study aimed to produce and pilot test a decision aid to assist participants in genomic research studies who are notified of clinically actionable research findings to make informed choices regarding uptake of genetic counseling. Development was guided by published literature, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, and the expertise of a steering committee of clinicians, researchers, and consumers. Decision aid acceptability was assessed by self-report questionnaire. All 19 participants stated that the decision aid was easy to read, clearly presented, increased their understanding of the implications of taking up research findings, and would be helpful in decision-making. While low to moderate levels of distress/worry were reported after reading the booklet, a majority of participants also reported feeling reassured. All participants would recommend the booklet to others considering uptake of clinically actionable research findings. Results indicate the decision aid is acceptable to the target audience, with potential as a useful decision support tool for genomic research participants.