Will a Good Citizen Actively Support Organizational Change? Investigation of Psychological Processes Underlying Active Change Support

The present study investigated motivational factors of employees active change support (ACS). It also investigated good citizens response to the change by highlighting convergence and divergence of motivational factors between ACS and traditional extra-role behavior. The findings based on 166 staff responses and 346 supervisor assessments in a hospital that recently implemented a sharedgovernance structure suggest that active change support is a result of an active thinking process that involves perception of potential benefit from change but not necessarily the consequence of conventional predictors of extra-role behaviors (i.e., positive attitudes). The findings also suggest that good citizens are not necessarily the supporters of organizational change and that in actuality they confront motivational dilemma especially when they hold high quality relationship with their employer because they are reluctant to challenge the status quo

Fire! : An Exhibition of 100 Texas Artists

Surls introduces the Fire project and its genesis. Includes statements by most of the 100 exhibiting artists

Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants

Background: Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. Methods: We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. Results: There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. Conclusions: The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report