Loving and angry? Happy and sad? Understanding and reporting of mixed emotions in mother–child relationships by 6‐ to 12‐year‐olds

The Evaluative Space Model of emotions allows for the coactivation of positive‐appetitive and negative‐avoidant systems, but few studies have examined mixed emotions in child development. Existing research suggests children's understanding of opposite valence emotion combinations emerges by approximately 11 years of age. However, it is not yet clear whether various opposite valence combinations are understood at different ages, nor whether children can understand them in others before they have experienced such mixed emotions themselves. Semi‐structured interviews with 97 children investigated whether they regarded six combinations of opposite valence mixed emotions as possible, could provide reasons for them, and report their own experience of each in the context of mother–child relationships. Both understanding that such combinations are possible and ability to provide reasons for them increased after age 6 and up to age 11, but were still incomplete in 12‐year‐olds. Understanding of different opposite valence combinations developed at different rates. At each age, fewer children who showed understanding of these combinations in others reported having had a similar experience themselves. The findings suggest a need to systematically examine a range of mixed emotions in order to develop a comprehensive theory of the development of mixed emotion understanding. They also suggest extending research into adolescence.     

The effects of self‐explaining when learning with text or diagrams

Self‐explaining is an effective metacognitive strategy that can help learners develop deeper understanding of the material they study. This experiment explored if the format of material (i.e., text or diagrams) influences the self‐explanation effect. Twenty subjects were presented with information about the human circulatory system and prompted to self‐explain; 10 received this information in text and 10 in diagrams. Results showed that students given diagrams performed significantly better on post‐tests than students given text. Diagrams students also generated significantly more self‐explanations that text students. Furthermore, the benefits of self‐explaining were much greater in the diagrams condition. To discover why diagrams can promote the self‐explanation effect, results are interpreted with reference to the multiple differences in the semantic, cognitive and affective properties of the texts and diagrams studied.     

The heterogeneity of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and conduct problems: Cognitive inhibition,emotion regulation,emotionality, and disorganized attachment

This study examined the contributions of several important domains of functioning to attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and conduct problems. Specifically, we investigated whether cognitive inhibition, emotion regulation, emotionality, and disorganized attachment made independent and specific contributions to these externalizing behaviour problems from a multiple pathways perspective. The study included laboratory measures of cognitive inhibition and disorganized attachment in 184 typically developing children (M age = 6 years, 10 months, SD = 1.7). Parental ratings provided measures of emotion regulation, emotionality, and externalizing behaviour problems. Results revealed that cognitive inhibition, regulation of positive emotion, and positive emotionality were independently and specifically related to ADHD symptoms. Disorganized attachment and negative emotionality formed independent and specific relations to conduct problems. Our findings support the multiple pathways perspective on ADHD, with poor regulation of positive emotion and high positive emotionality making distinct contributions to ADHD symptoms. More specifically, our results support the proposal of a temperamentally based pathway to ADHD symptoms. The findings also indicate that disorganized attachment and negative emotionality constitute pathways specific to conduct problems rather than to ADHD symptoms.     

Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Whether people compete or cooperate with each other has consequences for their own performance and that of organizations. To explain why people compete or cooperate, previous research has focused on two main factors: situational outcome structures and personality types. Here, we propose that—above and beyond these two factors—situational cues, such as the format in which people receive feedback, strongly affect whether they act competitively, cooperatively, or individualistically. Results of a laboratory experiment support our theorizing: After receiving ranking feedback, both students and experienced managers treated group situations with cooperative outcome structures as competitive and were in consequence willing to forgo guaranteed financial gains to pursue a—financially irrelevant—better rank. Conversely, in dilemma situations, feedback based on the joint group outcome led to more cooperation than ranking feedback. Our study contributes to research on competition, cooperation, interdependence theory, forced ranking, and the design of information environments.     

The roles of self-regulation and partner regulation on romantic relationship quality

Research into self-regulation and partner regulation strategies has largely involved parallel lines of research, thus, it is difficult to determine the relative contribution of both forms of regulation when it comes to relationship outcomes. Therefore, the question remains as to which form of regulation is more strongly associated with relationship quality; is it more important to focus on adaptive self-regulation or adaptive strategies to regulate one's partner? The current research addresses this important gap by comparing the relative associations of adaptive self-regulation and adaptive partner regulation strategies on romantic relationship quality. A community sample of mixed gender couples (N = 114) who were predominantly satisfied with their current relationships – but nonetheless still experienced relationship conflict – were administered self-report assessments of various self-regulation and partner regulation strategies as well as a measure of relationship quality. Couples also participated in a videotaped discussion of an unresolved relationship issue that was scored by trained coders for verbal and nonverbal indicators of self-regulation and partner regulation strategies. Actor–partner interdependence modeling revealed that for both men and women, adaptive self-regulation strategies were positively associated with their own evaluations of relationship quality as well as their partner's relationship quality. In contrast, engaging in adaptive partner regulation strategies was not significantly associated with men's or women's own, or their partner's relationship quality. Findings highlight the importance of focusing on self-regulation in relationships, as it is these strategies, over partner regulation strategies, that have more positive implications for the relationship quality experienced by typically satisfied couples.     

A systematic review of relationship sacrifices from 2002 to 2021: Moving toward inclusivity

We conducted a systematic review of research on relational sacrifices in romantic relationships from 2002 to 2021 [N = 115 studies] to answer three questions: Q1: Whose voices and vantage points are represented in the research?; Q2: What types of questions are valued?; Q3: What are the reflections and connections about relational sacrifices that were learned during the review? To address Q1, we coded sample demographics of study participants on geographical location, race/ethnicity, education/income/SES, gender (i.e., gender differences explored and beyond gender binaries), sexual orientation, age, and disability, using a coding system of 1 (exclusion/absence) to 5 (focus on context-relevant experiences for underrepresented samples). Results for Q1 showed that the most frequent codes were 1 (exclusion/absence) for information about the samples' disability status, education/income/SES, and both codes for gender (i.e., gender differences explored and beyond gender binaries); when demographic information was reported, the most frequent codes were 2 (compensatory addition) for age, sexual orientation, geographical location, and race/ethnicity. To address Q2, we coded for aspects of the study designs and conceptual dimensions of sacrifice. Results for Q2 showed that a majority of the studies in our review used quantitative and close-ended measures emphasizing behavioral frequency of sacrifice. For Q3, we include our own reflections and connections about relational sacrifices, questioning research methods, and challenging assumptions drawn from existing research to move toward a more inclusive science.     

EMPLOYING TASK ARRANGEMENTS AND VERBAL CONTINGENCIES TO PROMOTE VERBALIZATIONS BETWEEN RETARDED CHILDREN1

This study investigated the effects of arranging task events for interdependence, to increase the probability of social responding. During task interdependence, the subjects, participating in dyads and a four-person group, obtained task materials (a puzzle piece) from their partner before completing their task (appropriately placing the puzzle piece). The verbal contingency required a verbal request to precede a subject's receiving a task material from his partner. The verbal contingency yoked with task interdependence made task completion contingent on the appropriate verbalization. The findings from two experiments suggested that task interdependence was sufficient to increase partner-directed verbalizations for three of the four subjects. When the verbal contingency was added, all subjects increased their requests and other verbalizations to partner. Applied to a four-person group, the verbal contingency yoked with varying levels of task interdependence correspondingly affected the pattern and level of group communications. The greater the task interdependence, i.e., the more members each subject depended on to complete his task, the more complex the social network of verbal contacts, and the higher the level of both requests and other verbalizations for the group.     

Alexithymia as a potential source of symptom over‐reporting: An exploratory study in forensic patients and non‐forensic participants

The traditional interpretation of symptom over‐reporting is that it indicates malingering. We explored a different perspective, namely that over‐reporting of eccentric symptoms is related to deficits in articulating internal experiences (i.e., alexithymia). Given that alexithymia has been linked to sleep problems and that fatigue may fuel inattentive responding to symptom lists, we administered measures of alexithymia (TAS ‐20) and symptom over‐reporting (SIMS ), but also sleep quality (SLEEP ‐50) to forensic psychiatric outpatients (n = 40) and non‐forensic participants (n = 40). Forensic patients scored significantly higher on all three indices than non‐forensic participants. In the total sample as well as in subsamples, over‐reporting correlated positively and significantly with alexithymia, with r s being in the 0.50–0.65 range. Sleep problems were also related to over‐reporting, but in the full sample and in the forensic subsample, alexithymia predicted variance in over‐reporting over and above sleep problems. Although our study is cross‐sectional in nature, its results indicate that alexithymia as a potential source of over‐reporting merits systematic research.     

THE COMMUNITY VIEW REVISITED

Abstract: Joining a vast Wittgensteinian anti‐theoretical movement, John Canfield has argued that it is possible to read the claims that (1) “language is essentially communal” and (2) “it is conceptually possible that a Crusoe isolated from birth should speak or follow rules” in such a way that they are perfectly compatible, and, indeed, that Wittgenstein held them both at once. The key to doing this is to drain them of any theoretical content or implications that would put each claim at odds with the other. I argue here, first of all, that it is not possible to detheorize both (1) and (2) and still hope to say anything illuminating about the nature of language. In fact, Canfield himself does not succeed in detheorizing both (1) and (2) but ends up trivializing (1) and leaving (2) with quite a bit of theoretical content. I further argue, however, that this is getting the matter the wrong way around. Contra Canfield et al., it is only when we recognize this that we can appreciate how radical and innovative Wittgenstein's claims about language really are.