Peer relationships in counseling psychology training

Twelve students from APA-accredited counseling psychology doctoral programs were interviewed about their experiences with peers in their program, and about their values and beliefs about peer relationships in graduate school. Interview data were analyzed using consensual qualitative research. Participants reported a wide range of positive (e.g. collaborative and supportive) and negative (e.g. competitive and hostile) interactions with peers inside and outside of the classroom, in research, and in clinical work. Compared to advisory and supervisory relationships, peer relationships were typically less formal and more open. The sharing of common training experiences generally facilitated mutual understanding among trainees. In addition, a visual analog scale, the peer relationship scale (PRS), was used to measure participants’ closeness with peers. Results from the PRS appeared to be useful in distinguishing participants with the most positive and negative peer relationships, warranting further investigation of its psychometric properties and application in program evaluation and research on training. Implications for training are discussed.     

The effect of counselling-based training on online peer support

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of counselling-based training on online peer support by comparing the interventions of trained peer supporters as opposed to non-trained peer supporters. Two independent raters analysed 746 support posts published during a period of one year at the ‘Student to Student’ online peer support discussion forum at University of Athens. Results showed that the 30-hour counselling-based training used in this study allowed trained peer supporters to use basic counselling skills, such as open-ended and closed-ended questions and paraphrasing more often and even use relatively complex techniques, such as problem solving or definition of the main problem that non-trained supporters did not use at all or used very rarely. In addition, training did not seem to affect the peer support relationship, as indicated by the lack of differences between the two groups on empathy, acceptance and empowerment. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the training enhanced the peer support offered without compromising the nature of the relationship formed between peers. Therefore, brief counselling-based training can be an integral part of every peer-moderated online support programme.     

Lunch Buddy Mentoring for Children Victimized by Peers: Two Pilot Studies

The authors describe two pilot studies examining the potential benefits of Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring, a manualized approach to school-based mentoring. LB mentoring takes place during the school lunch period and is designed to promote positive changes in children's peer relationships. In both studies, changes in peer victimization were assessed after one and three semesters of LB mentoring. In the first study, LB mentors were paired with elementary school children (N = 24) identified by child and teacher reports as victimized by peers. Results revealed significant declines in self- and teacher-rated victimization after one and three semesters of mentoring. In the second study, LB mentors were paired with victimized children who also engaged in bullying behavior (N = 23). Results indicated significant declines in self- and teacher-ratings of peer victimization after three semesters of mentoring. In both studies, ratings of perceived harm were low and ratings of satisfaction were high. Discussed are the implications of these findings for future research and for efforts to develop a nonharmful way to help children who are repeatedly victimized.     

Disagreement and Intellectual Scepticism

Several philosophers have recently argued that disagreement with others undermines or precludes epistemic justification for our opinions about controversial issues (e.g. political, religious, and philosophical issues). This amounts to a fascinating and disturbing kind of intellectual scepticism. A crucial piece of the sceptical argument, however, is that our opponents on such topics are epistemic peers. In this paper, I examine the reasons for why we might think that our opponents really are such peers, and I argue that those reasons are either (a) too weak or (b) too strong, implying absurd conclusions. Thus, there is not a compelling case for disagreement-based intellectual scepticism.     

Peer Disagreement and Two Principles of Rational Belief

This paper presents a new solution to the problem of peer disagreement that distinguishes two principles of rational belief, here called probability and autonomy. When we discover that we disagree with peers, there is one sense in which we rationally ought to suspend belief, and another in which we rationally ought to retain our original belief. In the first sense, we aim to believe what is most probably true according to our total evidence, including testimony from peers and authorities. In the second, we aim to base our beliefs only on objective evidence and argumentation, even if that lowers the probability of their being true. The first principle of rational belief tends to serve the short-term epistemic interests of individuals, while the second tends to serve the long-term epistemic interests of both individuals and groups. The best way to reconcile these principles in cases of peer disagreement is to associate them with two corresponding species of belief, here called perception and opinion.     

Feedback on health status and peer popularity influences social risk decision-making processes in adolescents and young adults

Cognitive and dual-processes models, involving cognitive and socio-emotional components, for adolescents’ risky behaviour have been proposed. This study tested their predictions by manipulating the presence or absence of feedback about gains and losses in health and peer popularity in a decision-making task with peers. Risky (e.g., taking or refusing a drug) and ambiguous decisions (e.g., eating hamburger or hotdog) were examined in 256 adolescents (aged 13–14; 15–16; 17–18) and young adults (aged 19–20). Participants made more risky choices and required less decision time when receiving feedback about the negative consequences on health and positive consequences on peer popularity. Decision times were comparatively larger for risky than for safe options in late adolescence and young adulthood. Results supported the dual-processes model showing that, though late cognitive changes were observed that could eventually lead to the selection of safe options, feedback gains in peer popularity outweighed unhealthy consequences leading to risky decisions.     

苔花盛开如牡丹？农村留守儿童负性生活事件与心理健康的关系

以1368名农村留守儿童为被试,通过问卷调查探讨农村留守儿童的负性生活事件与心理健康的关系,并检验心理韧性、同伴依恋的链式中介作用。结果发现：（1）农村留守儿童负性生活事件与其心理健康呈负相关关系,心理健康在性别、民族、年级和父母外出状况上差异显著;（2）农村留守儿童负性生活事件不仅能直接预测其心理健康,而且还通过同伴依恋、心理韧性发挥链式中介作用。     

同伴侵害与青少年抑郁:社会退缩的中介作用与师生关系的调节作用

研究表明同伴侵害是青少年抑郁的重要风险因素,然而其中介机制和调节机制仍有待进一步探究。本研究采用问卷法对834名青少年进行调查,考察了社会退缩在同伴侵害与青少年抑郁关系中的中介作用,以及师生关系在这一关系中的调节作用。结果发现：（1）社会退缩显著中介同伴侵害与青少年抑郁的关系;（2）师生关系显著调节中介路径“同伴侵害→社会退缩→青少年抑郁”,具体而言,相较于高水平师生关系的青少年群体而言,同伴侵害通过社会退缩影响抑郁的中介效应在低水平师生关系的青少年群体中更高。     

The Academic Productivist Regime: Affective Dynamics in the Moral-Political Economy of Publishing

With proliferating neoliberal modes of science governance, publishing has become more important. Recent studies point to researchers’ feeling of exhaustion and anxiety as responses to academic performance regimes. Yet how affects underpin publishing in scientific cultures and communities, and what this implies for STS scholarship has remained underexplored. Drawing on insights from ethnographic fieldwork and the cultural studies of affect, this article traces the role of emotions, including hope, contempt, and excitement for understanding the new academic productivist regime at a Czech research institution. While junior researchers’ orientations are fostered through rendering publications objects of hope, a moral-political economy intersects with geopolitical history and values of research organization to shape the publication practices of many senior scientists. An affective labor of combat and equanimity is necessary for managing these orientations that are corporeally energized by a dynamic of thrill. This four-pronged approach makes palpable how emotions render scientists’ bodies hopeful, combative and excited while intersecting with ideals of meritocratic research organization and assessment. Frustration and failure are never entirely absent but serve as an immanent driving force for a publishing culture that thrives on adrenaline, combativeness, and hope. This makes it difficult to leverage failures towards criticism of the academic productivist regime—both for the scientists differently affected within the institution and STS researchers. Different engagements with this regime require a more capacious accounting for the pleasure and thrill generated by the uncertainty of publication outcome as well as by unacknowledged practices of care.