A comparison of three methods for scoring figure drawings

Figure drawings obtained from 758 white male medical students were scored using three different methods. Method I involved 16 different physical size measurements; Method II involved six separate sophistication of body concept ratings; and Method III involved 42 separate aspects of the drawings weighted in direct proportion to their relative frequency of occurrence in the sample studied (conventionality scoring). Separate factor analyses of the scores derived from each method revealed that Methods I and II each reflect only a single underlying factor, and that these factors are uncorrelated in the population studied. Method III yielded eight meaningful factors, each of which may be construed as an independent area of conventionality/deviancy. An overall conventionality/deviancy score was also derived. It is believed that these three methods of scoring capture most of the variance inherent in existing figure drawing scoring systems, but that use of all three is necessary for a comprehensive analysis.     

Empirically based assessment of competence to stand trial: Instrument development and preliminary findings

An instrument was designed to assist mental health professionals in objectively assessing competence to stand trial. Items were empirically derived based on input from multidisciplinary teams of mental health professionals experienced in working with forensic patients in a state hospital. Procedures were adapted from Goldfried and D'Zurella's five-stage behavioral-analytic model for the assessment of social competence. The resulting 15-item audiotaped scale assessed both legal and social competence based on reported responding in jail, in interactions with lawyers, and in the courtroom. Interrater reliability on scoring of responses ranged from .68–.96. High correlations between social and legal competence (.56–.82) demonstrated the likelihood of overlap of these constructs and the importance of directly addressing both. A pilot intervention program was designed from the instrument and implemented with three forensic patients. Failure to demonstrate change in these subjects is briefly discussed, and recommendations for future efforts in this area are made.     

Avowal under oppression

Leading expressivist proposals characterize the mental state expressed in the making of a normative judgment solely in terms of intrinsic, psychological dispositions. As a result, they fail to capture a subset of the normative judgments that agents can and do make; they miss the way that external factors can influence what the making of a normative judgment looks like. This problem can be seen most plainly in the context of systemic oppression. Intuitively, one can make a normative judgment that conflicts with the oppressive ideas one has previously been conditioned to endorse, but expressivism seems to deny that this is possible. The expressivist's inability to count these avowals made under oppression as genuine normative judgments makes expressivism deficient as a metaethical theory.     

Intentional response distortion during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 has abruptly and unexpectedly transformed nearly every aspect of work, including but not limited to increased unemployment rates and uncertainty regarding future job prospects. Response distortion has always been a concern given that many organizations rely on information that is self-reported by applicants regarding their potential employability (e.g., responses to self-reported personality instruments, resumes, interview responses). Drawing from the Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) theory of motivation, we propose that the uncertainty surrounding jobs may lead to amplified distorted responses on these measures in areas where COVID-19 was most salient. In a sample of 213 working adults [~50% female, age M = 38.48], the present study shows that increases in response distortion on a measure of conscientiousness were more pronounced as a function of (a) local COVID positivity rates and (b) job type, such that frontline workers distorted their responses the most. Findings are discussed in the context of VIE theory, personality measurement, and challenges with maintaining effective selection procedures.     

Social factors influence solo and rat dyads exploration of an unfamiliar open field

Animal Cognition - Exploring new and unfamiliar environments is critical for survival, providing information on food, shelter, mates, and sources of danger. The open field paradigm is commonly used...     

Rice-farming areas report more anxiety across two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in China

Cultures responded to the COVID-19 pandemic differently. We investigated cultural differences in mental health during the pandemic. We found regional differences in people's reports of anxiety in China over two years from 2020 to 2021 (N = 1186). People in areas with a history of rice farming reported more anxiety than people in wheat-farming areas. Next, we explored more proximal mechanisms that could help link the distal, historical factor of rice farming to people's modern experience of anxiety. Rice areas scored higher on collectivism and tight social norms than wheat areas, and collectivism, rather than norm tightness, mediated the rice-anxiety relationship. These findings advance our understanding of the distal sources of cultural differences, the proximal mechanisms, and mental health problems during the pandemics.     

Predictors of COVID-19 precautionary behaviors to protect people with disabilities

Disability is conceptualized using one of two major frameworks: the medical and the social model of disability. The medical model of disability describes disability as an individual issue in which the appropriate intervention is to remove the disability. The social model of disability describes disability as a social construction in which the appropriate intervention is societal change to increase accessibility. This study drew on models of disability to understand predictors of engagement in COVID-precautionary behavior prior to the vaccine to protect people with disabilities (PWD) from contracting COVID-19. Participants (n = 720) with and without disabilities (n = 77 and n = 633, respectively) completed an online questionnaire measuring disability beliefs, attitudes toward PWD, concerns about PWD contracting COVID-19, and engagement in behavior protecting PWD from contracting COVID-19. Medical model beliefs were negatively associated with behavior. In addition, negative attitudes toward PWD and low concern about PWD contracting COVID-19 fully accounted for the relationship. Social model beliefs were positively associated with behavior. In addition, positive attitudes toward PWD and greater concern about PWD contracting COVID-19 partially explained the relationship. These findings suggest that framing disability as a social construction rather than a medical issue could promote greater public health behavior to protect PWD from contracting COVID.