Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches

Thematic analysis methods, including the reflexive approach we have developed, are widely used in counselling and psychotherapy research, as are other approaches that seek to develop ‘patterns’ (themes, categories) across cases. Without a thorough grounding in the conceptual foundations of a wide variety of across‐case analytic approaches, and qualitative research more broadly—something rarely offered in counselling training—it can be difficult to understand how these differ, where they overlap, and which might be appropriate for a particular research project. Our aim in this paper is to support researchers in counselling and psychotherapy to select an appropriate across‐case approach for their research, and to justify their choice, by discussing conceptual and procedural differences and similarities between reflexive thematic analysis (TA) and four other across‐case approaches. Three of these are also widely used in counselling and psychotherapy research—qualitative content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis and grounded theory. The fourth—discourse analysis—is less widely used but importantly exemplifies the critical qualitative research tradition. We contextualise our comparative approach by highlighting the diversity within TA. TA is best thought of as a spectrum of methods—from types that prioritise coding accuracy and reliability to reflexive approaches like ours that emphasise the inescapable subjectivity of data interpretation. Although reflexive TA provides the point of comparison for our discussion of other across‐case approaches, our aim is not to promote reflexive TA as ‘best’. Rather, we encourage the knowing selection and use of analytic methods and methodologies in counselling and psychotherapy research.     

The effects of violent video games and shyness on individuals’ aggressive behaviors

The general aggression model (GAM) has suggested that the interaction between person factors (e.g., personality variables) and situation factors (e.g., playing violent video games [VVGs]) can increase individuals’ aggressive behaviors through their cognition (e.g., hostile attributions), affect (e.g., negative affect), and/or arousal. The present study employed a modified competitive reaction time task to test the effects of shyness, violent (vs. nonviolent) gameplay, and shyness on individuals’ positive–negative affect, hostile attributions, and aggressive behaviors. In addition, the present study also employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the mediation (by cognition and affect) and moderation (by shyness). Results showed that playing a VVG increased aggressive behaviors, negative affect, and hostile attributions primarily among shy participants. In addition, the results of SEM also revealed that this moderating role was mediated by negative affect and hostile attributions. The present study supported GAM and showed that individuals’ aggressive behaviors are differentially susceptible to VVGs, depending on their level of shyness in a “for bad and for worse” manner.