Development and Evaluation of an Online Intervention for Reducing Hostile Interpretation Bias: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Hostility is a trait-level construct characterized by a generally suspicious and cynical view of other people that results in a tendency to interpret ambiguous social situations in hostile or threatening ways. Cognitive behavioral treatments for hostility have high dropout rates, which may be due to hostile beliefs interfering with treatment engagement. As such, there is a need for an alternative approach to prevent dropout and enhance engagement. The current study therefore developed and tested a 1-session, 40-minute online intervention targeting hostility. It was hypothesized that the hostility intervention would be rated as acceptable as indexed by self-report and completion rates. It was also hypothesized that the hostility intervention would be associated with greater reductions in hostility as compared to a control intervention. Finally, it was hypothesized there would be indirect effects of intervention condition on anger and aggression via changes in hostility.Undergraduates (N = 101) who reported elevated hostility and hazardous alcohol use were randomized to complete either the hostility intervention or a control condition targeting physical health habits. Results showed that individuals randomized to the hostility intervention found the intervention to be highly acceptable and all participants completed the intervention in its entirety. The hostility intervention was associated with significantly faster reductions in hostile interpretations than the control condition with medium to large effects. There were significant indirect effects of intervention condition on month one follow-up anger and aggression via changes in hostile cognitions. This proof-of-concept study provides initial evidence that a brief, single-session intervention may be a promising approach for reducing hostility and its correlates.     

“‘WE' AND ‘THEY'”: WHY MUST WE ENGAGE IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONVERSATION?

This article contains the principal ideas that I presented in four different sessions at the IRAS 2022 conference, on the theme “‘We' and ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversation on Identity.” Focusing on the central topic, the article begins with (i) the contents of my opening lecture; followed by (ii) a broad outline of the concerns discussed in my book, Cross-Cultural Conversation: A New Way of Learning, intertwined with glimpses of the intellectual journey that led me to CCC, delivered in the Book-discussion session; (iii) a summary of the main ideas about the importance of meeting of religions today, which formed the background for the CCC Panel discussion on religion, where I was in conversation with spokespersons of five world religions; and (iv) my comments on how science–religion dialogue can help promote a sense for human solidarity by combining knowledge with wisdom, in the concluding session.     

The elderly and high technology medicine: A case for individualized,autonomous allocation

The issues involved in decision making about the aggressiveness of future medical care for older persons are explored. They are related to population trends, the heterogeneity of older persons and a variety of factors involved in individual preferences. Case studies are presented to illustrate these points, as well as a review of pertinent literature. The argument is offered that, considering these many factors, a system of flexible, individualized care by informed patient preference, is more rational than the rationing of technological services by age.     

Physicians,entrepreneurism and the problem of conflict of interest

This paper examines the ethical issues of conflict of interest raised by the burgeoning development of physician involvement in for-profit entrepreneurial activities outside their practice. After documenting the nature and extent of these activities, and their potential for conflicts of interest, the paper assesses the major arguments for and against physicians' referral of patients to facilities they own or in which they invest. The paper concludes that an outright ban on such activity seems ethically warranted.     

BELIEF VS. COMMITMENT, VALIDITY VS. VALUE: A RESPONSE TO WARD GOODENOUGH

Abstract. This paper is on Ward Goodenough's recent article (27: 3), suggesting that his points can be clarified by reiterating the distinction between the realms of meaning and relevance. Religion's "truth" is in the form of its ualue; the "proof" which it requires is uindication; and the resulting "faith" must be understood as commitment.     

RELATING THE PHYSICS AND RELIGION OF DAVID BOHM

Abstract. David Bohm's thinking has become widely publicized since the 1982 performance of a form of the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen (EPR) experiment. Bohm's holomovement theory, in particular, tries to explain the nonlocality that the experiment supports. Moreover, his theories are close to his metaphysical and religious thinking. Fritjof Capra's writings try something similar: supporting a theory (the bootstrap theory) because it is close to his religious beliefs. Both Bohm and Capra appear to use their religious ideas in their physics. Religion, their source for physical hypotheses, provides the motivation to develop and uphold them.     

The responsibility of engineers, appropriate technology, and lesser developed nations

Projects importing technology to lesser developed nations may raise five important concerns: famine resulting from substitution of cash crops for subsistence crops, the use of products banned in the United States but permitted overseas, the use of products safe in the U.S. but unsafe under local conditions, ecological consequences of technological change, and cultural disruption caused by displacing traditional ways of life. Are engineers responsible for the foreseeable hunger, environmental degradation, cultural disruption, and illness that results from the project? Are engineers guilty of paternalism if they refuse to accept the project for that reason? Criteria are given to help engineers assess the extent of their responsibility when working in lesser developed nations.