Recognizing Emotions in a Foreign Language

Expressions of basic emotions (joy, sadness, anger, fear, disgust) can be recognized pan-culturally from the face and it is assumed that these emotions can be recognized from a speaker's voice, regardless of an individual's culture or linguistic ability. Here, we compared how monolingual speakers of Argentine Spanish recognize basic emotions from pseudo-utterances ("nonsense speech") produced in their native language and in three foreign languages (English, German, Arabic). Results indicated that vocal expressions of basic emotions could be decoded in each language condition at accuracy levels exceeding chance, although Spanish listeners performed significantly better overall in their native language ("in-group advantage"). Our findings argue that the ability to understand vocally-expressed emotions in speech is partly independent of linguistic ability and involves universal principles, although this ability is also shaped by linguistic and cultural variables

Anxiety symptoms prior to a prostate cancer diagnosis: Associations with knowledge and openness to treatment

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135536/1/bjhp12222.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135536/2/bjhp12222_am.pd

Adherence of internet-based cancer risk assessment tools to best practices in risk communication: Content analysis

BACKGROUND: Internet-based risk assessment tools offer a potential avenue for people to learn about their cancer risk and adopt risk-reducing behaviors. However, little is known about whether internet-based risk assessment tools adhere to scientific evidence for what constitutes good risk communication strategies. Furthermore, their quality may vary from a user experience perspective. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the extent to which current best practices in risk communication have been applied to internet-based cancer risk assessment tools. METHODS: We conducted a search on August 6, 2019, to identify websites that provided personalized assessments of cancer risk or the likelihood of developing cancer. Each website (N=39) was coded according to standardized criteria and focused on 3 categories: general website characteristics, accessibility and credibility, and risk communication formats and strategies. RESULTS: Some best practices in risk communication were more frequently adhered to by websites. First, we found that undefined medical terminology was widespread, impeding comprehension for those with limited health literacy. For example, 90% (35/39) of websites included technical language that the general public may find difficult to understand, yet only 23% (9/39) indicated that medical professionals were their intended audience. Second, websites lacked sufficient information for users to determine the credibility of the risk assessment, making it difficult to judge the scientific validity of their risk. For instance, only 59% (23/39) of websites referenced the scientific model used to calculate the user\u27s cancer risk. Third, practices known to foster unbiased risk comprehension, such as adding qualitative labels to quantitative numbers, were used by only 15% (6/39) of websites. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in risk communication strategies used by internet-based cancer risk assessment tools were common. By observing best practices, these tools could limit confusion and cultivate understanding to help people make informed decisions and motivate people to engage in risk-reducing behaviors

Crossâ Sectional Psychological and Demographic Associations of Zika Knowledge and Conspiracy Beliefs Before and After Local Zika Transmission

Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in diseaseâ specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and selfâ efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015â 2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved crossâ sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (Marchâ May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (Julyâ August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and selfâ efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153206/1/risa13369_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153206/2/risa13369.pd

Misrepresentation and Nonadherence Regarding COVID-19 Public Health Measures

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread and impact of SARS-CoV-2 relies heavily on honesty and adherence from the general public. OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of, reasons for, and factors associated with misrepresentation and nonadherence regarding COVID-19 public health measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study recruited a national, nonprobability sample of US adults to participate in an online survey using Qualtrics online panels (participation rate, 1811 of 2260 [80.1%]) from December 8 to 23, 2021. The survey contained screening questions to allow for a targeted sample of one-third who had had COVID-19, one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were vaccinated, and one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were unvaccinated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey assessed 9 different types of misrepresentation and nonadherence related to COVID-19 public health measures and the reasons underlying such behaviors. Additional questions measured COVID-19–related beliefs and behaviors and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The final sample included 1733 participants. The mean (SD) participant age was 41 (15) years and the sample predominantly identified as female (1143 of 1732 [66.0%]) and non-Hispanic White (1151 of 1733 [66.4%]). Seven hundred twenty-one participants (41.6%) reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence in at least 1 of the 9 items; telling someone they were with or about to be with in person that they were taking more COVID-19 preventive measures than they actually were (420 of 1726 [24.3%]) and breaking quarantine rules (190 of 845 [22.5%]) were the most common manifestations. The most commonly endorsed reasons included wanting life to feel normal and wanting to exercise personal freedom. All age groups younger than 60 years (eg, odds ratio for those aged 18-29 years, 4.87 [95% CI, 3.27-7.34]) and those who had greater distrust in science (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]) had significantly higher odds of misrepresentation and/or nonadherence for at least 1 of the 9 items. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey study of US adults, nearly half of participants reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence regarding public health measures against COVID-19. Future work is needed to examine strategies for communicating the consequences of misrepresentation and nonadherence and to address contributing factors

Walking the tightrope: communicating overdiagnosis in modern healthcare

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment have serious implications for individuals, healthcare systems, and society,1 2 and effective strategies are urgently needed to help the public, clinicians, and policy makers address this problem. Communication about overdiagnosis has been highlighted as essential for moving forward but presents several challenges, such as the potential to confuse the public, undermine trust, and adversely affect people who already have a diagnosis. Various communication based strategies offer real promise; we describe what is known and what we need to know to communicate effectively and safely about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Key messages: Overdiagnosis provides no benefits to patients and is a challenge to the sustainability of modern healthcare systems Communication based strategies could help reduce overdiagnosis and its negative impact on individuals and health systems Mass media education, shared decision making, terminology changes for disease states, and deliberative methods (juries) all have potential as effective communication strategiesKJMcC is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) career development fellowship (1029241), JJ is supported by an NHMRC early career fellowship (1037028), and. JW is supported by a career development fellowship from Cancer Research UK (C7492/A17219)

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

Replication—an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice—is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress

Cross-sectional analysis of a large cohort with X-linked Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMTX1)

OBJECTIVE: To extend the phenotypic description of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMTX1) and to draw new genotype-phenotype relationships. METHODS: Mutations in GJB1 cause the main X-linked form of CMTX (CMTX1). We report cross-sectional data from 160 patients (from 120 different families, with 89 different mutations) seen at the Inherited Neuropathies Consortium centers. RESULTS: We evaluated 87 males who had a mean age of 41 years (range 10-78 years) and 73 females who had a mean age of 46 years (range 15-84 years). Sensory-motor polyneuropathy affects both sexes, more severely in males than in females, and there was a strong correlation between age and disease burden in males but not in females. Compared with females, males had more severe reduction in motor and sensory neurophysiology parameters. In contrast to females, the radial nerve sensory response in older males tended to be more severely affected compared with younger males. Median and ulnar nerve motor amplitudes were also more severely affected in older males, whereas ulnar nerve motor potentials tended to be more affected in older females. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between the sexes in other features of the disease, such as problems with balance and hand dexterity. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a phenotypic correlation with specific GJB1 mutations, sex-specific distinctions and clinically relevant attributes need to be incorporated into the measurements for clinical trials in people with CMTX1. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01193075