Aligning inside and outside perspectives of the self: A cross‐cultural difference in self‐perception

Past research shows that European Americans tend to take a first‐person perspective to understand the self and are unlikely to align the inside look with the outside gaze, whereas Asians tend to take a third‐person perspective and are likely to shift their inside look in the direction of the outsize gaze. In three experiments, we compared Asians and European Americans' self‐perceptions when the presence of their parents in the background of self‐perception was primed or otherwise. Without the priming, both European Americans and Asians viewed themselves more positively from their own perspective than from their parents' perspective. With the priming, only Asians lowered the positivity of their self‐perceptions to match the perceived positivity of the self in the parents' perspective. These results suggest that Asians do not have a static, passive tendency to assimilate their self‐views into the perceived external assessments of the self. Rather, their self‐views are fluid and flexible.     

Stress Mediates the Within-Person Longitudinal Associations Between Depression and Different Anxiety Syndromes in Youth

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology - Depressive symptoms predict within-person change in physical symptoms of anxiety and social anxiety symptoms; however, potential mediators of...     

Purity matters more than harm in moral judgments of suicide: Response to Gray (2014)

Many people judge suicide to be immoral. We have found evidence that these moral judgments are primarily predicted by people’s belief that suicide taints the soul and by independent concerns about purity. This finding is inconsistent with accounts that define morality as fundamentally based upon harm considerations. In this commentary, we respond to a critique of our finding, and we provide further support for our original conclusions. Even when applying new exclusion criteria to our data, an examination of effect sizes demonstrates that concerns about purity robustly and meaningfully explain variance in moral judgments of suicide. While harm concerns sometimes predict moral judgments of suicide alongside purity concerns, they reliably explain a much smaller proportion of the variance than do purity concerns. Therefore, data from six studies continue to suggest that the relevance of harm concerns for moral judgments of suicide is substantially overshadowed by the contribution of purity concerns.     

A Bifactor Model of Anxiety Sensitivity: Analysis of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the fit of a bifactor model of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3; Taylor et al. Psychological Assessment, 19, 176–188, 2007) as well as to examine measurement invariance of the ASI-3 across gender. Participants were undergraduate students from the University of Cincinnati (n?=?954; 63 % female). Results indicated that the bifactor model was the best fit to the data, and that this model of AS is fully invariant in terms of gender. The current findings suggest that anxiety sensitivity consists of a general factor and three independent group factors (rather than a higher-order factor with three correlated lower-order factors). The ASI-3 subscales from the bifactor model however did not provide incremental predictive utility above and beyond the general AS factor with respect to an external anxiety criterion. Related research and clinical implications are discussed.     

Patients’ Views of Treatment-Focused Genetic Testing (TFGT): Some Lessons for the Mainstreaming of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA2</Emphasis> Testing

This paper explores patients’ views and experiences of undergoing treatment-focused BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing (TFGT), either offered following triaging to clinical genetics (breast cancer) or as part of a mainstreamed care pathway in oncology (ovarian cancer). Drawing on 26 in-depth interviews with patients with breast or ovarian cancer who had undergone TFGT, this retrospective study examines patients’ views of genetic testing at this point in their care pathway, focusing on issues, such as initial response to the offer of testing, motivations for undergoing testing, and views on care pathways. Patients were amenable to the incorporation of TFGT at an early stage in their cancer care irrespective of (any) prior anticipation of having a genetic test or family history. While patients were glad to have been offered TFGT as part of their care, some questioned the logic of the test’s timing in relation to their cancer treatment. Crucially, patients appeared unable to disentangle the treatment role of TFGT from its preventative function for self and other family members, suggesting that some may undergo TFGT to obtain information for others rather than for self.     

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.