While a growing body of evidence has highlighted the psychological distress experienced by individuals dealing with the UK benefits system, there has been little research into that system from the perspective of Trauma Informed Care (TIC). This study explored to what extent people’s experiences of benefits assessment fitted with TIC principles, using a framework produced by NHS Education for Scotland. Secondary aims were to understand experiences that were not captured by the framework, and to explore the limitations of the framework in context. Participants were 12 people receiving NHS therapy for trauma-related difficulties, who had attended an assessment for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a UK financial benefit designed to help with long-term illness or disability. Semi-structured interviews were carried out, and a framework analysis conducted. Results suggested that PIP assessments were severely re-traumatising, with a prolonged adverse effect on mental health. Participants’ experiences contrasted so greatly with the principles of TIC that an alternative framework was constructed, comprising five key themes: harm, distrust, rigidity, intimidation, and powerlessness. Recommendations are made for further research, including an understanding of assessors’ perspectives, and how TIC principles might be introduced into the assessment process.

In this note, we provide direct evidence of cheating in online assessments of political knowledge. We combine survey responses with web tracking data of a German and a US online panel to assess whether people turn to external sources for answers. We observe item-level prevalence rates of cheating that range from 0 to 12 percent depending on question type and difficulty, and find that 23 percent of respondents engage in cheating at least once across waves. In the US panel, which employed a commitment pledge, we observe cheating behavior among less than 1 percent of respondents. We find robust respondent- and item-level characteristics associated with cheating. However, item-level instances of cheating are rare events; as such, they are difficult to predict and correct for without tracking data. Even so, our analyses comparing naive and cheating-corrected measures of political knowledge provide evidence that cheating does not substantially distort inferences.

There are many pressures on elite footballers. They work in a meritocracy, where only the best are selected and play at the highest levels. From the moment they enter an academy to their retirement there is a fear of deselection and rejection. Elite players need to contend with criticisms from fans and via social media; team and management dynamics can be stressful. Fears of injury are major concerns. In addition, the players are likely to face everyday difficulties experienced by the rest of society, such as relationship, family and financial problems. There is a great deal of stigma associated with mental health problems in footballers, hence approaches are required that are destigmatising. This article presents two frameworks conceptualising stress in footballers: the Power Threat Meaning Framework, which describes stress in non-diagnostic terms; and the Yerkes–Dodson curve, which describes how stress can affect footballers’ mental and physical performances on the pitch. Both frameworks can combine to enable therapists to understand players’ distress and its impact and to guide towards appropriate treatments, as we show in a fictitious case study.

Following recent arguments that cultural practices in wild animal populations have important conservation implications, we argue that recognizing captive animals as cultural has important welfare implications. Having a culture is of deep importance for cultural animals, wherever they live. Without understanding the cultural capacities of captive animals, we will be left with a deeply impoverished view of what they need to flourish. Best practices for welfare should therefore require concern for animals’ cultural needs, but the relationship between culture and welfare is also extremely complex, requiring us to rethink standard assumptions about what constitutes and contributes to welfare.