To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), with prevalence of 14%, causes disability and burden to the person, his/her close environment and whole society due to, among other factors, interruption in a range of daily life activities. To date little research was done to delineate comprehensive patterns of daily life participation among people with PTSD. Despite extensive research, our understanding of factors affecting the participation in PTSD is limited, given that relief in the PTSD symptoms does not guarantee returning to satisfying daily life activities.
Investigate objective and subjective participation dimensions among individuals with PTSD in comparison to healthy controls; and explore the impact of personal and illness-related factors, body functions and environment on the participation in PTSD.
Sixty two individuals with PTSD (age: M=34.3, SD =9.2; women: 24, 77.4%) and matching by age and gender healthy controls participated in this cross-sectional study. They completed standard assessments for PTSD symptoms severity, general cognitive profile, executive functions (EF) based on self-report and performance, sensory processing, self-efficacy, capacity to perform everyday activities, environmental properties, and actual participation in daily life in objective (number of activities, frequency, location and with whom) and subjective (enjoyment, satisfaction, meaningfulness) dimensions.
The participation was found to be inferior in PTSD in the following dimensions: number of activities, participation frequency, and enjoyment (2.72<3.9, p<.01), and experienced low meaning within the participation. Number of participated activities was correlated with self-reported EF (r=0.465, p<.05), and environment properties (r=0.5, p<.01). Frequency of participation was associated with self-reported EF (r=0.45, p<.05). In addition, number of activities, frequency and experience of meaning were inferior in those who reported on avoidance from sensory stimuli in daily life (71%; 2.5<t<2.9, p<.05). PTSD symptoms severity was not correlated with the participation (-0.35<r<-0.01, p<.05).
The restriction in both objective and subjective dimensions of participation in PTSD raises major concern given the profound effect of participation on well-being, and individual and community burden. The study reveals unique patterns of association between the participation indices and personal and illness related factors in PTSD, suggesting that objective factors are of less impact in comparison to subjective ones; and aspects of cognitive and sensory regulation as well as environment are of particular importance for participation. This pilot study demonstrates a need for further research to expand our knowledge in the field with the ultimate goal of contributing to well-being and health of individuals with PTSD.
Academic teaching and research on subjects related to Latin America developed in Israel not as the result of multi-faceted and premeditated planning but as a consequence of general historical events as well as of local and partial initiatives. In order to understand the present position of research and teaching activities on these subjects, it is indispensable to bear in mind the major developments which occurred in Israel in two main areas: (a) the emergence of academic life and institutions during Israel's 25 years of exstence; (b) the development of the diplomatic relations and economic and technological ties between the State of Israel and Latin American countries. Research and academic teaching evolved directly from these two determining factors.
In March 2021, a series of explosions shook a military base in Bata, Equatorial Guinea. As a response to government officials’ request, the Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IDF-MC) deployed an emergency aid team that faced two major challenges: (1) understanding the scenario, the injury patterns, and the needs of the local medical system; and (2) minimizing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak threats. This report describes the team design, the activities performed before and during the deployment, analyzes the pathology encountered, and shares lessons learned from the mission.
Data were collected from the delegation protocols and IDF medical records. All activities of the Israeli delegation were coordinated with the local government.
The local authorities reported that a total of 107 people were killed and more than 700 people were wounded. The team was the first international team to arrive at the scene and assisted the local medical teams to treat 231 patients in the three local hospitals and 213 patients in field clinics in the villages surrounding Bata. The COVID-19 pandemic influenced the operation of this mission, and caution measures were activated.
Unplanned explosions at munitions sites (UEMS) are a growing problem causing the medical teams to face unique challenges. By understanding the expected challenges, the team was reinforced with a plastic surgeon, portable ultrasound devices, a large amount and a variety of antibiotics, whole blood units, and freeze-dried plasma. Rehabilitation experts were needed in some cases in the week following the injury. An important key for the success of this kind of medical aid delegation is the collaboration with the local medical teams, which enhances patient care.
Sylvia M. Payne was one of the first women to practice psychoanalysis in Britain. Though she became president of the British Psychoanalytical Society, not a single scholarly work is dedicated to Payne's intellectual ideas—a substantial historical lacuna, especially when compared with the research on Ernest Jones, one of Sigmund Freud's early disciples and the president who preceded her. This essay presents the first exploration of her early work. It focuses on her belonging to a group of British analysts who challenged Sigmund Freud's thinking on sexual difference. The full scope of this challenge, I argue, as it emerged in interwar Britain, has remained unexamined until today. Adding to the scholarship on the prominent and lesser-known roles of women in psychoanalysis, the article shows that Payne made significant contributions to the field; she also developed the work of Melanie Klein, on whom we also need more research. The study describes the life and work of a woman who has been neglected in the historiography of twentieth-century intellectual history. It engages with broader methodological questions of how to define the political, historical role of female psychoanalysts of her generation.
Throughout the 2010s, the Supreme Court of the United States has enforced contractual provisions that force arbitration of disputes and ban class actions. Unsurprisingly, companies quickly went on to instill these mandatory arbitration provisions in their contracts with consumers, employees, and suppliers. A heated debate ensued, bursting out of academic circles and into popular media, over the desirability of such mandatory arbitration revolution. Proponents argued it will improve efficiency, by streamlining dispute resolution and reducing lawyer fees. Opponents argued it will be unfair for the already disadvantaged workers, consumers, and suppliers, depriving them of their day in court. Yet the existing debate too often misses the forest for the trees. Instead of analyzing fairness and efficiency toward parties to a given dispute, we should focus on effects on the market overall.
Public enforcement affects reputations too. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions, in particular, play a key role in shaping the behavior of publicly traded companies. Much like with private litigation, SEC enforcement shapes behavior not just through imposing fines but also through producing information. This chapter examines how effective SEC enforcement practices are in generating valuable information and facilitating reputational sanctioning. Switching our focus from Delaware litigation to SEC investigations enriches our understanding of the law-and-reputation theory and illustrates its broad applicability. Most notably, we learn how regulatory enforcement actions generate different reputational dynamics than private litigation.
How does corporate law work? This question has puzzled corporate legal scholarship for decades. The puzzle stems from the apparent lack of legal sanctions. Corporate decision makers practically never pay out of pocket for their misbehavior, so presumably the law lacks teeth. An influential strand of the literature suggested that corporate law’s teeth consist in facilitating nonlegal sanctions. But so far the existing accounts have failed to develop a satisfactory theory of how nonlegal forces work or how exactly the law facilitates them.
Five years after the Polinsky and Shavell article that we opened the book with, the movie Spotlight came out. Spotlight won the 2015 Oscar for best film by telling a compelling story about investigative reporters holding the Catholic Church to account over child sex abuse. Yet as I was watching the movie, I could not help but see law-and-reputation themes in almost every scene. The Boston Globe’s Spotlight reporters could not have done it alone. The legal system helped them. The Globe reporters spotted the pattern of abuse by looking at numbers of lawsuits filed against individual priests. They revealed the cover-up by getting internal church documents from motions attached to court files. Spotlight is therefore not really a story about investigative journalism holding the powerful to account. It is rather a story about interactions between the media and the courts. Between law and reputation.
Reputation matters. Companies invest vast resources in building and maintaining a good reputation. And the threat of losing reputation once bad news about the company breaks disciplines corporate behavior to begin with. Companies anticipate that the release of damning information about them may raise the costs of financing, because investors and lenders now realize that the company has poorer internal controls than they had previously thought. Or it may raise the operational costs of the company, because consumers, suppliers, and employees now perceive the company’s operational culture to be more opportunistic than they had initially assumed.
Back in 2009 when I was starting my doctoral studies, I sat through my first ever law and economics seminar. Two of the field’s founding fathers – Polinsky and Shavell – were presenting their proposal to abolish product liability. A heated debate over the outcomes ensued in the room: how abolishing liability could affect access to justice or distribution. But I was still stuck on the logic, namely, how Polinsky and Shavell treated reputation as an alternative to the legal system. Manufacturers, their argument went, will invest in the quality and safety of their products even without the threat of legal liability, simply because they care about maintaining their reputation. And in markets where these nonlegal (reputational) forces are strong enough, it is not cost-effective to keep a costly adjudication system merely for the sake of an incremental contribution to deterrence.
Why do business companies donate to charity? Why do some companies donate more than others? The prevalent answers to these questions usually invoke reputation: companies donate in hope of securing good reputation among their stakeholders, or so the argument goes. Yet, the same problem we observed with the conventional wisdom on reputational sanctions appears here as well, with the conventional wisdom on reputational rewards: all too often legal scholars simply assume that donating to charity boosts a company’s reputation, without fully examining how reputational rewards work, or how the legal regime influences companies’ reputational incentives to donate.
Chapter 1 revolved around the question of why similar behaviors lead to different reputational outcomes. This chapter suggests that a large part of the answer is the legal system. When stakeholders hear about a good or bad deed done by a company, they update their beliefs about the company’s quality and consequently update their willingness to interact with the company. But this process of belief revision – the process of reputational rewarding/sanctioning – does not operate in a vacuum. The legal system generates new pieces of information on the behavior in question and adds saliency and credibility to existing information. Stakeholders can then rely on the information that was generated by the legal system to reassess their beliefs about the company. In other words, the law dictates the market reaction.
Throughout this book we have looked at examples from prizewinning journalistic stories that were told with the help of legal sources. But we have not looked at stories that were not told. What about stories that were not told because the legal system held information back, stonewalling journalists? We usually get a peek at such counterfactuals in cases where the information eventually gets out, after being buried for a while.
Can judicial review effectively check regulators’ behaviors? The answer largely depends on how regulators behave – what motivates them. If, as in traditional economic theory, regulators mostly maximize their narrow self-interest, then there is little that judicial review can do to stop regulatory capture. Judges may invalidate specific regulatory decisions after the fact, but they cannot overcome the inherent advantages that special interests enjoy in the way of offering lucrative future business opportunities or campaign financing. If, however, regulators care not just about material incentives, but also about their reputation, then judicial review can shape regulators’ behavior indirectly, by providing information on how regulators behave. Regardless of whether courts intervene and strike down specific regulatory decisions or not, the process of litigation can generate reputational pressures that propel the regulators to change their behavior.