Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies.

Two studies examined the association between attachment style and perceptions of social support. Study 1 (N ϭ 95 couples) used an experimental paradigm to manipulate social support in the context of a stressful task. Insecure participants (anxious and avoidant) who received low-support messages appraised these messages more negatively, rated a prior behavioral interaction with their partner as having been less supportive, and performed significantly worse at their task compared with secure participants. Study 2 (N ϭ 153 couples) used a similar paradigm except that partners were allowed to send genuine support messages. Insecure participants (especially fearful) perceived their partners' messages as less supportive, even after controlling for independent ratings of the messages and relationship-specific expectations. These studies provide evidence that individuals are predisposed to appraise their support experiences in ways that are consistent with their chronic working models of attachment, especially when the support message is ambiguous

The Generalization of Attachment Representations to New Social Situations: Predicting Behavior during Initial Interactions with Strangers

©American Psychological Association, 2008. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012635 .The idea that attachment representations are generalized to new social situations and guide behavior with unfamiliar others is central to attachment theory. However, research regarding this important theoretical postulate has been lacking in adolescence and adulthood, as most research has focused on establishing the influence of attachment representations on close relationship dynamics. Thus, the goal of this investigation was to examine the extent to which attachment representations are predictive of adolescents' initial behavior when meeting and interacting with new peers. High school adolescents (N = 135) participated with unfamiliar peers from another school in 2 social support interactions that were videotaped and coded by independent observers. Results indicated that attachment representations (assessed through interview and self-report measures) were predictive of behaviors exhibited during the discussions. Theoretical implications of the results and contributions to the existing literature are discussed. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)https://doi.org/10.1037/a001263

The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Performance, and First Results

The Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) is a new optical time-domain survey that uses the Palomar 48 inch Schmidt telescope. A custom-built wide-field camera provides a 47 deg 2 field of view and 8 s readout time, yielding more than an order of magnitude improvement in survey speed relative to its predecessor survey, the Palomar Transient Factory. We describe the design and implementation of the camera and observing system. The ZTF data system at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center provides near-real-time reduction to identify moving and varying objects. We outline the analysis pipelines, data products, and associated archive. Finally, we present on-sky performance analysis and first scientific results from commissioning and the early survey. ZTF’s public alert stream will serve as a useful precursor for that of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

The Zwicky Transient Facility: Science Objectives

The Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), a public–private enterprise, is a new time-domain survey employing a dedicated camera on the Palomar 48-inch Schmidt telescope with a 47 deg2 field of view and an 8 second readout time. It is well positioned in the development of time-domain astronomy, offering operations at 10% of the scale and style of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) with a single 1-m class survey telescope. The public surveys will cover the observable northern sky every three nights in g and r filters and the visible Galactic plane every night in g and r. Alerts generated by these surveys are sent in real time to brokers. A consortium of universities that provided funding (“partnership”) are undertaking several boutique surveys. The combination of these surveys producing one million alerts per night allows for exploration of transient and variable astrophysical phenomena brighter than r∼20.5 on timescales of minutes to years. We describe the primary science objectives driving ZTF, including the physics of supernovae and relativistic explosions, multi-messenger astrophysics, supernova cosmology, active galactic nuclei, and tidal disruption events, stellar variability, and solar system objects. © 2019. The Astronomical Society of the Pacific

Targeting DNA Damage Response and Replication Stress in Pancreatic Cancer

Background and aims: Continuing recalcitrance to therapy cements pancreatic cancer (PC) as the most lethal malignancy, which is set to become the second leading cause of cancer death in our society. The study aim was to investigate the association between DNA damage response (DDR), replication stress and novel therapeutic response in PC to develop a biomarker driven therapeutic strategy targeting DDR and replication stress in PC. Methods: We interrogated the transcriptome, genome, proteome and functional characteristics of 61 novel PC patient-derived cell lines to define novel therapeutic strategies targeting DDR and replication stress. Validation was done in patient derived xenografts and human PC organoids. Results: Patient-derived cell lines faithfully recapitulate the epithelial component of pancreatic tumors including previously described molecular subtypes. Biomarkers of DDR deficiency, including a novel signature of homologous recombination deficiency, co-segregates with response to platinum (P < 0.001) and PARP inhibitor therapy (P < 0.001) in vitro and in vivo. We generated a novel signature of replication stress with which predicts response to ATR (P < 0.018) and WEE1 inhibitor (P < 0.029) treatment in both cell lines and human PC organoids. Replication stress was enriched in the squamous subtype of PC (P < 0.001) but not associated with DDR deficiency. Conclusions: Replication stress and DDR deficiency are independent of each other, creating opportunities for therapy in DDR proficient PC, and post-platinum therapy

Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

There is a need to develop and validate biomarkers for treatment response and survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). The chemotherapy response score (CRS) stratifies patients into complete/near-complete (CRS3), partial (CRS2), and no/minimal (CRS1) response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Our aim was to review current evidence to determine whether the CRS is prognostic in women with tubo-ovarian HGSC treated with NACT.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access the full-text via the publisher's site

The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Performance, and First Results

The Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) is a new optical time-domain survey that uses the Palomar 48 inch Schmidt telescope. A custom-built wide-field camera provides a 47 deg^2 field of view and 8 s readout time, yielding more than an order of magnitude improvement in survey speed relative to its predecessor survey, the Palomar Transient Factory. We describe the design and implementation of the camera and observing system. The ZTF data system at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center provides near-real-time reduction to identify moving and varying objects. We outline the analysis pipelines, data products, and associated archive. Finally, we present on-sky performance analysis and first scientific results from commissioning and the early survey. ZTF's public alert stream will serve as a useful precursor for that of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Relationship Functioning Motivations for Caregiving in Adult Intimate Relationships: Influences on Caregiving Behavior and ARTICLE Motivations for Caregiving in Adult Intimate Relationships: Influences on Caregiv

This study identified and examined the correlates of specific motivations for caregiving in romantic couples (N = 194 couples). At Time 1, couple members completed measures assessing motivations for caregiving, the quality of caregiving that occurs in the relationship, and personal and relationship characteristics that might influence caregiving motivations. Relationship functioning was then assessed 2 to 3 months later. Results revealed that (a) there are a number of distinct motivations for providing and for not providing care to one's partner, (b) the motivations are associated with various personal features of the caregiver and the recipient, (c) the caregiver's perceptions of the relationship influence his or her caregiving motives, (d) different motivations for caregiving predict different patterns of caregiving behavior, and (e) responsive caregiving predicts the recipient's perceptions of healthy relationship functioning both immediately and over time. Implications of identifying the motivations that promote or inhibit the provision of responsive support in intimate relationships are discussed. Keywords: motivation; caregiving; social support; couples A large body of literature indicates that receiving social support helps people cope more effectively with stressful life events and may have long-term benefits for psychological and physical well-being (e.g., Why Study Caregiving Motivations? The caregiving role is a complex one that requires individuals to respond flexibly to a wide range of needs as they arise. Because caregiving often involves a good deal of responsibility, as well as cognitive, emotional, and sometimes tangible resources, caregivers must be motivated to accept that responsibility and expend the time and effort required to provide effective support. If care- givers are not sufficiently motivated, then it is likely that they will provide either low levels of support or ineffective forms of support that are out of synch with their partner's needs. However, there currently exists no research in the relationships literature that has examined the specific motivations that underlie the provision of care/support. Research in the helping literature has examined motivations for helping strangers (generally as a bystander in an emergency); however, no comparable work has been done with regard to helping close relationship partners. Because caregiving motivations are likely to play an important role in determining the quality of caregiving that is given in a relationship, it is important to first identify the specific types of motives that relationship partners have for providing (and not providing) care to one another and then to examine the influence of these motivations on patterns of caregiving behavior. Romantic relationships were targeted for this investigation because many adults come to rely heavily on their romantic partner as an important source of support and care and because motivations for providing care/support have not been examined in this context (see What Motivates Individuals to Provide (or to Not Provide) Support/Care to Intimate Partners? The first goal of this investigation was to identify the specific motivations that individuals have for providing support/care to their relationship partners. In doing so, we drew from several relevant theoretical perspectives. Helping literature. We began by turning to the social psychological literature on helping, which has examined motivations for helping strangers. Attempts to understand what motivates people to help strangers have focused on three general explanations (see A second explanation focuses on social norms and argues that people are motivated to follow rules for accepted and expected behavior A third explanation focuses on the influences of arousal and emotion. According to this perspective, specific emotions may motivate people to help others. For example, feelings of sympathy may increase helping, whereas feelings of anger may inhibit helping. Researchers also have shown that guilt (for a previous transgression) and other negative motivations (e.g., sadness) may be powerful motivators of helping All of these motivations for helping are thought to be hedonistic in that people are helping others to benefit themselves. However, according to Batson's empathyaltruism hypothesis Motivational systems. Other perspectives that are useful for identifying motivations for caregiving within the context of close relationships involve theories of motivational processes (e.g., Attachment theory provides another theoretical perspective for understanding motivations to provide support. Attachment theory postulates the existence of a caregiving system, which is thought to be a behavioral safety-regulating system that becomes activated in response to a significant other's distress Hypotheses. Theories of helping, motivation, and attachment allow us to identify the types of motives that are likely to underlie the provision of support/care in intimate relationships. First, it is likely that motivations for caregiving can be either egoistically or altruistically motivated. Second, it is likely that some caregiving motives are appetitively based (promoting the provision of support/care) and some are aversively based (inhibiting the provision of support/care). Based on these assumptions, we developed a preliminary measure designed to assess distinct motivations that underlie caregiving in intimate relationships. This measure was divided into two sections, one that assessed motives for helping (the appetitive system) and one that assessed motives for not helping (the aversive system). First, we reasoned that individuals have a variety of motivations for helping their relationship partners, which reflect the functioning of the behavioral approach system. Furthermore, we expected that some of these motives are relatively altruistic and some relatively egoistic. For example, consistent with the empathyaltruism link identified in the helping literature, we expected that some caregivers may be altruistically motivated to help their relationship partners because they feel love, concern, and responsibility for them and truly wish to reduce their partners' need/distress. Nevertheless, we expected that even close relationship partners may sometimes provide care/support to get some type of reward (e.g., to be praised, to receive help in return, to feel in control, to reduce one's own anxiety) or to fulfill obligations and avoid unpleasant consequences for not helping (e.g., to avoid feelings of guilt, to avoid the wrath of a displeased partner, to avoid making a bad impression, to make up for a past transgression). Other egoistic motivations that individuals may report for helping relationship partners include helping for strategic relationship purposes (e.g., to keep the partner in the relationship) and helping because the caregiver perceives his or her partner to be incapable of handling problems on his or her own, a motive that may appear to be altruistic but may instead be perceived as burdensome and obligatory for the caregiver. Second, we reasoned that caregivers would have a variety of motivations for not helping their relationship partners, which reflect the functioning of the behavioral inhibition system. For example, some individuals may have learned that helping leads to negative (or at least unrewarding) consequences, perhaps because one's partner is difficult to help and unappreciative of one's 952 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from support efforts, because one's partner is too dependent and expects too much, or because distress is perceived as aversive. Additional reasons for not providing care/support to relationship partners may involve a lack of resources (e.g., time and energy), a perceived lack of skill with regard to helping others, a lack of concern and responsibility for one's partner, and perceptions that the partner is capable of handling problems on his or her own. From Where Do These Motives Come? Another goal of this investigation was to examine features of the caregiver, the recipient, and the relationship that may be associated with caregivers' motives for helping and for not helping their partners. According to the principles of learning theory, people can learn about the consequences of helping and thus develop particular motivations for helping significant others, either through direct experience or through social learning. Therefore, we hypothesized that caregivers who report a supportive relationship history with their own caregivers (parents) will report more altruistic motivations (feelings of love, concern, and responsibility) and less egoistic motivations (e.g., reward seeking, obligation) for caring for their relationship partners. We further anticipated that an unsupportive relationship history would be associated with specific motives for not caregiving, including a perceived lack of skills, a dislike of distress, and a lack of concern/responsibility for one's partner. We also expected that chronic personality characteristics of both the caregiver and the recipient would be associated with caregiving motivations. First, we previously reported that insecure caregiver attachment is associated with an overall index of egoistic motivations for providing care Other characteristics of the caregiver and the support-recipient, including self-esteem and depression, were expected to influence caregiving motivations. For example, we expected that caregivers who have partners who are depressed and have low self-esteem would report that they help their partners primarily because they perceive their partners as being needy and incapable of handling problems on their own and because they feel obligated to help. Furthermore, we expected that caregivers of depressed and low self-esteem partners would report not helping because their partner is difficult to help, is perceived to be too dependent, and because the caregiver feels that he or she lacks knowledge regarding how to help the partner. Finally, we expected that the caregiver's reports of the quality of his or her relationship would influence caregiver motivation. Specifically, we predicted that people who are involved in happy, satisfying, and trusting relationships would be more likely to endorse altruistic motives for helping their partners (feelings of love, concern, and responsibility for one's partner) and less likely to endorse egoistic or hedonistic reasons for helping (feeling obligated to help, hoping to be rewarded for helping). Finally, we expected that caregiver reports of poor relationship functioning (i.e., high levels of conflict) would be associated with the aversive motivations for not caring for one's partner (e.g., not helping because the partner is difficult to help, because the caregiver lacks feelings of responsibility, because the caregiver dislikes expressions of distress). No specific hypotheses were advanced regarding gender differences in caregiving motives. What Implications Do These Motives Have for Caregiving Behavior? An important reason for identifying caregiving motives is that they should play a central role in determining the quality of care that individuals actually provide. In a previous report, we showed that a general index of egoistic motivations for caring was associated with ineffective forms of support In general, we hypothesized that individuals who are egoistically motivated to care for their partners are likely to provide poor, unresponsive caregiving, mainly because they are likely to provide the type of caregiving that is more beneficial to themselves than to the partner (e.g., convincing a partner that his or her problem is unimportant to alleviate one's own distress or time commitment). Moreover, we anticipated that different types of egoistic motives would be associated with different Feeney, Collins / CAREGIVING MOTIVATIONS 953 at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from types of ineffective caregiving. Specifically, individuals who care for their partner to gain strategic relationship rewards (e.g., helping to make their partner dependent) are likely to be compulsive (overinvolved) caregivers, whereas individuals who report obligation motives (e.g., helping to avoid negative consequences) are likely to be the more controlling caregivers. In contrast, individuals who are relatively altruistically motivated to care for their partners (e.g., out of a genuine concern for the partner's well-being) are likely to provide more responsive caregiving mainly because they are likely to provide the type of support that is dictated by the partner's needs. How Does Caregiving Behavior Influence the Quality of Relationships Over Time? A final goal of this investigation was to examine the degree to which caregiving quality predicts the supportrecipient's reports of relationship quality over time. This was important to examine because warm and responsive caregiving should be central to the development of secure, well-functioning relationships in adulthood, just as it is in childhood with parent/child dyads Summary In summary, the goals of this investigation are to identify the specific motives that individuals have for providing and for not providing care to their romantic partners and to identify some potential correlates (predictors and outcomes) of these motives. A general conceptual model depicting the proposed pattern of relationships among variables is presented in 2 For each phase of the study, one member of the couple was designated as the "support recipient" and his or her romantic partner was designated as the "caregiver." The mean age of support recipients was 19.1 (range = 17-33) and the mean age of caregivers was 19.5 (range = 17-28). Couples had been romantically involved for an average of 14.4 months (range = 1-95) and all were heterosexual. The majority of couples were involved in dating relationships (93%) and a small percentage were either married or engaged to be married (7%). Of the 202 original couples, 8 couples were excluded from data analyses, either because they were not proficient in English or because their involvement in an established romantic relationship was questionable. Of the remaining 194 couples, 111 men and 83 women were assigned to the caregiver role. at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from included a measure of motivations for caring for one's partner and a measure of motivations for not providing support/care to one's partner. Both measures, each consisting of 40 items, were designed specifically for use in this study. For the Motivations for Caregiving measure, participants were presented with the phrase, "On occasions when I help my partner, I generally do so because . . . " and then were asked to rate a series of motivations on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Sample items include, "I love my partner and am concerned about my partner's well-being" and "I want to avoid negative consequences from my partner (e.g., my partner would get angry)." This measure was designed to assess a variety of egoistic motives (e.g., feeling obligated, wanting to benefit the self) and relatively altruistic motives (e.g., love and concern for partner motives) for helping one's partner. For the Motivations for Not Caregiving measure, participants were presented with the phrase, "On occasions when I don't help my partner, I generally don't do it because . . . " and then were asked to rate a series of motivations on the same 6-point scale (e.g., "My partner doesn't appreciate my helping efforts"; "I don't like to hear about problems"). This scale was developed to identify various motives for not helping one's partner (e.g., dislike of distress, lack of concern and responsibility, lack of skills). Both measures were designed to identify and examine the full range of motivations that individuals are likely to have for providing and for not providing care to a romantic partner. Detailed analyses regarding the identification and reliability of specific subscales, as well as the predictive validity of these subscales, are presented below. Participants also completed measures of various individual difference factors that might be associated with caregiving motivations. These included measures of attachment style, self-esteem, depression, and history of support/nurturance from parents. Attachment style was measured using Brennan, Clark, and Shaver's (1998) 36-item measure, which contains two subscales: The Avoidance subscale (α = .92) measures the extent to which a person is comfortable with closeness and intimacy as well as the degree to which a person feels that others can be relied on to be available when needed. The Anxiety subscale (α = .92) measures the extent to which a person is worried about being rejected, abandoned, or unloved. The avoidance and anxiety dimensions were not significantly correlated with each other (r = .12, ns). Self-esteem was assessed with Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item scale (α = .86). Depression was assessed with an abbreviated (16-item) version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) (α = .81). To assess history of support/nurturance from parents, participants rated 29 adjectives describing their relationship with their mother (or primary female guardian) while growing up and the same 29 adjectives describing their relationship with their father (or primary male guardian). Thirteen adjectives assessed warmth and acceptance (e.g., supportive, nurturing) and 16 items assessed coldness and rejection (e.g., neglecting, angry). An index of warm/accepting history with each parent was computed by reverse-scoring responses to the negative adjectives and then averaging all 29 items (α = .96 for mother, α = .96 for father). Finally, a composite index of supportive history with parents was computed by averaging the subscales for mother and father (α = .96). Participants also completed measures of relationship factors that were expected to be associated with caregiving motivation. These included measures of satisfaction, conflict, and trust. Relationship satisfaction (α = .91) was measured using the four items employed by Couple members completed a variety of caregiving measures designed to assess their own and their partner's caregiving behavior. These measures included existing scales as well as additional items developed specifically for this investigation. Based on a principal components analysis, composite indexes were computed to represent three patterns of caregiving: (a) responsive, (b) compulsive, and (c) controlling. 4 The responsive caregiving composite (α = .96) included items from several scales that were highly intercorrelated and loaded on a single factor. This index included (a) 12 items from the Proximity and Sensitivity subscales of the Kunce and Shaver (1994) Caregiving Questionnaire, (b) 12 items assessing the provision of instrumental and emotional forms of support within the relationship Time 2. Approximately 2 to 3 months after participating in the first phase of the investigation, both members of each couple were sent, by mail, a follow-up questionnaire. First, participants were asked if they were still romantically involved with their partner. If either member of the couple indicated that they were no longer dating their partner, the couple was coded as "broken up," otherwise they were coded as "still together." If participants indicated that they were still together, they were asked questions regarding their current relationship quality, which included the same relationship satisfaction (α = .92), conflict (α = .92), and trust (α = .84) scales that they had completed at Time 1. Of the original 194 couples who participated at Time 1, 177 couples (91%) were mailed follow-up questionnaires. Seventeen couples (9%) could not be located for various reasons (e.g., change of address). Of the 177 couples who were mailed the follow-ups, 128 (72%) supportrecipients and 115 (65%) caregivers completed and returned their questionnaires. 5 Of these, 100 couples were still involved in relationships, completed the followup measures, and are included in data analyses