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 email@example.com
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.
In explaining the “parenting – callous-unemotional traits – antisocial behavior” axis, recent theoretical advances postulate a critical role for affiliative reward. Existing empirical studies focus on early childhood and the appetitive phase of the reward process (i.e. affiliation-seeking behavior) rather than the consummatory phase (i.e. affective rewards). This study focuses on experienced affiliative reward (i.e. companionship, intimacy, affection, and worth) in relation to parents and best friends in early adolescence. The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Network of Relationships Inventory, Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits, and Youth Self Report were completed by 1132 12-year-olds and analyzed via structural equation models. In this cross-sectional sample, parent-related affiliative reward mediated the path from perceived parenting practices to callousness and further to aggression and rule-breaking. Parent-related affiliative reward was also related to uncaring traits and further to aggression and rule-breaking. In contrast, friend-related affiliative reward was not a mediator in this theoretical causal chain and largely not related to perceived parenting practices or CU traits. Low parent-related experienced affiliative reward is a mechanism through which corporal punishment, poor monitoring, and low involvement translate into callousness, and therefore to aggression and rule-breaking. Friend-related affiliative reward does not yet play a role in early adolescence.
It is unknown how much variation in adult mental health problems is associated with differences between societal/cultural groups, over and above differences between individuals.
To test these relative contributions, a consortium of indigenous researchers collected Adult Self-Report (ASR) ratings from 16 906 18- to 59-year-olds in 28 societies that represented seven culture clusters identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study (e.g. Confucian, Anglo). The ASR is scored on 17 problem scales, plus a personal strengths scale. Hierarchical linear modeling estimated variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. Multi-level analyses of covariance tested age and gender effects.
Across the 17 problem scales, the variance accounted for by individual differences ranged from 80.3% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems to 95.2% for DSM-oriented avoidant personality (mean = 90.7%); by society: 3.2% for DSM-oriented somatic problems to 8.0% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems (mean = 6.3%); and by culture cluster: 0.0% for DSM-oriented avoidant personality to 11.6% for DSM-oriented anxiety problems (mean = 3.0%). For strengths, individual differences accounted for 80.8% of variance, societal differences 10.5%, and cultural differences 8.7%. Age and gender had very small effects.
Overall, adults' self-ratings of mental health problems and strengths were associated much more with individual differences than societal/cultural differences, although this varied across scales. These findings support cross-cultural use of standardized measures to assess mental health problems, but urge caution in assessment of personal strengths.
To conduct international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement regarding older adult psychopathology.
We compared self-ratings of problems (e.g. I cry a lot) and personal strengths (e.g. I like to help others) for 10,686 adults aged 60–102 years from 19 societies and collateral ratings for 7,065 of these adults from 12 societies.
Data were obtained via the Older Adult Self-Report (OASR) and the Older Adult Behavior Checklist (OABCL; Achenbach et al., 2004).
Cronbach’s alphas were .76 (OASR) and .80 (OABCL) averaged across societies. Across societies, 27 of the 30 problem items with the highest mean ratings and 28 of the 30 items with the lowest mean ratings were the same on the OASR and the OABCL. Q correlations between the means of the 0–1–2 ratings for the 113 problem items averaged across all pairs of societies yielded means of .77 (OASR) and .78 (OABCL). For the OASR and OABCL, respectively, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) yielded effect sizes (ESs) for society of 15% and 18% for Total Problems and 42% and 31% for Personal Strengths, respectively. For 5,584 cross-informant dyads in 12 societies, cross-informant correlations averaged across societies were .68 for Total Problems and .58 for Personal Strengths. Mixed-model ANOVAs yielded large effects for society on both Total Problems (ES = 17%) and Personal Strengths (ES = 36%).
The OASR and OABCL are efficient, low-cost, easily administered mental health assessments that can be used internationally to screen for many problems and strengths.
Virtual reality (VR) may enhance the effectiveness of psychological interventions for acute pain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of VR-based interventions for pain associated with medical procedures.
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO until June 17th 2018. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing VR-based psychological interventions to usual care, for pain intensity (primary outcome) or affective and cognitive components of pain (secondary outcomes), assessed real-time or retrospectively. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was independently evaluated by three raters using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects model using the Paule and Mandel estimator was used for pooling effect sizes.
27 RCTs (1452 patients) provided enough data for meta-analysis. Compared to usual care, VR-based interventions reduced pain intensity both real-time (9 RCTs, Hedges' g = 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–1.57) and retrospectively (22 RCTs, g = 0.87, 95% CI 0.54–1.21). Results were similar for cognitive (8 RCTs, g = 0.82, 95% CI 0.39–1.26) and affective pain components (14 RCTs, g = 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.77). There was marked heterogeneity, which remained similarly high in sensitivity analyses. Across domains, few trials were rated as low risk of bias and there was evidence of publication bias. Adverse events were rare.
Though VR-based interventions reduced pain for patients undergoing medical procedures, inferring clinical effectiveness is precluded by the predominance of small trials, with substantial risk of bias, and by incomplete reporting.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.