Prioritising CAP intervention needs: An improved cumulative voting approach

The process to define the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is underway. The implementation model governing the process requires each EU Member State to design a National Strategic Plan to deliver operational actions exploiting the synergies under the two pillars of the policy. Each Plan must be built from an evidence-based needs assessment that undergoes rigorous prioritisation and planning to create comprehensive, integrated, and achievable interventions. In Italy, the success of this planning process requires all interested stakeholders to generate options for the regional authorities who plan, manage, and legislate agricultural activities. This research proposes a decision-making technique, based on the cumulative voting approach, that can be used effectively when multiple persons from different backgrounds and perspectives are engaged in problem-solving and needs prioritisation. The results indicate that the model can be applied both theoretically and practically to prioritise Strategic Plan needs that involve national and regional authorities. Validation of the model allows it to be used in the next consultative processes and for expansion to socioeconomic stakeholders

Can I Count on Getting Better? Association between Math Anxiety and Poorer Understanding of Medical Risk Reductions

Lower numerical ability is associated with poorer understanding of health statistics, such as risk reductions of medical treatment. For many people, despite good numeracy skills, math provokes anxiety that impedes an ability to evaluate numerical information. Math-anxious individuals also report less confidence in their ability to perform math tasks. We hypothesized that, independent of objective numeracy, math anxiety would be associated with poorer responding and lower confidence when calculating risk reductions of medical treatments. Methods. Objective numeracy was assessed using an 11-item objective numeracy scale. A 13-item self-report scale was used to assess math anxiety. In experiment 1, participants were asked to interpret the baseline risk of disease and risk reductions associated with treatment options. Participants in experiment 2 were additionally provided a graphical display designed to facilitate the processing of math information and alleviate effects of math anxiety. Confidence ratings were provided on a 7-point scale. Results. Individuals of higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to baseline risks and risk reductions associated with treatment options and were more confident in their interpretations. Individuals who scored high in math anxiety were instead less likely to correctly interpret the baseline risks and risk reductions and were less confident in their risk calculations as well as in their assessments of the effectiveness of treatment options. Math anxiety predicted confidence levels but not correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy. The graphical display was most effective in increasing confidence among math-anxious individuals. Conclusions. The findings suggest that math anxiety is associated with poorer medical risk interpretation but is more strongly related to confidence in interpretations

Psychosocial risk assessment in organizations: concurrent validity of the brief version of the Management Standards Indicator Tool

The Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT) is a 35-item self-report measure of the psychosocial work environment designed to assist organizations with psychosocial risk assessment. It is also used in work environment research. Edwards and Webster presented a 25-item version of the MSIT based on the deletion of items having a factor loading of < .65. Stress theory and research suggest that psychosocial hazard exposures may result in harm to the health of workers. Thus, using data collected from three UK organizations (N = 20,406) we compared the concurrent validity of the brief and full versions of the MSIT by exploring the strength of association between each version of the instrument and a measure of psychological wellbeing (GHQ-12 and Maslach Burnout Inventory). Analyses revealed that the brief instrument offered similar but not always equal validity to that of the full version. The results indicate that use of the brief instrument, which would be less disruptive for employees, would not elevate the risk of false negative or false positive findings in risk assessment

Following wrong suggestions: self-blame in human and computer scenarios

This paper investigates the specific experience of following a suggestion by an intelligent machine that has a wrong outcome and the emotions people feel. By adopting a typical task employed in studies on decision-making, we presented participants with two scenarios in which they follow a suggestion and have a wrong outcome by either an expert human being or an intelligent machine. We found a significant decrease in the perceived responsibility on the wrong choice when the machine offers the suggestion. At present, few studies have investigated the negative emotions that could arise from a bad outcome after following the suggestion given by an intelligent system, and how to cope with the potential distrust that could affect the long-term use of the system and the cooperation. This preliminary research has implications in the study of cooperation and decision making with intelligent machines. Further research may address how to offer the suggestion in order to better cope with user's self-blame.Comment: To be published in the Proceedings of IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT)201

Il rammarico nei processi decisionali

Regret is the most frequently studied emotion in decision making. The aim of the present review is to offer a systematic analysis of experimental studies on regret in decision making, in order to highlight the most robust findings and to bring up inconsistencies and open issues. We first analyze the complex phenomenology of regret and then discuss the main theories of regret in decision making. Finally, we present a selective review of the most significant studies devoted to the neural processes underlying regret

The Regret and Disappointment Scale: An instrument for assessing regret and disappointment in decision making.

The present article investigates the effectiveness of methods traditionally used to distinguish between the emotions of regret and disappointment and presents a new method \u2014 the Regret and Disappointment Scale (RDS) \u2014 for assessing the two emotions in decision making research. The validity of the RDS was tested in three studies. Study 1 used two scenarios, one prototypical of regret and the other of disappointment, to test and compare traditional methods with the RDS. Results showed that only the RDS clearly differentiated between the constructs of regret and disappointment. Study 2 confirmed the validity of the RDS in a real-life scenario. Study 3 showed the advantages of the RDS over the traditional methods in gambling situations commonly used in decision making research, and provided evidence for the convergent validity of the RDS

La Valutazione Dello Stress Lavoro Correlato: Adattamento Italiano dell\u2019HSE Management Standards Work-Related Stress Indicator Tool

Obiettivo del presente contributo \ue8 quello di presentare una validazione preliminare di un adattamento in italiano dell\u2019HSE Management Standards Work-Related Stress Indicator Tool (IT), uno strumento per valutare lo stress lavoro-correlato a livello organizzativo sviluppato originariamente in Gran Bretagna dall\u2019Health and Safety Executive. Alle sette scale della versione originale dell\u2019IT \ue8 stata aggiunta una scala che valuta l\u2019ambiente fisico di lavoro. Sono stati coinvolti nello studio 190 dipendenti dell\u2019Universit\ue0 di Trieste. \uc8 stata condotta un\u2019analisi confermativa che ha evidenziato un adattamento soddisfacente della struttura a otto fattori dello strumento. Ulteriori analisi psicometriche hanno mostrato un\u2019adeguata consistenza interna delle scale componenti l\u2019IT e una buona validit\ue0 di criterio, evidenziata dalle correlazioni con l\u2019autopercezione di stress, la soddisfazione e la motivazione per il proprio lavor

The HSE management standards indicator tool: Concurrent and construct validity

stract BACKGROUND: The Health & Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool (HSE-MS IT) is a questionnaire commonly used to assess work-related stress risks at an organizational level. A critical factor in determining whether this instrument is actually useful is that higher levels of stress risk in the work-design domains should predict higher levels of stress and stress-related outcomes in workers. Only a few studies, however, have addressed this issue. AIMS: To test both the concurrent and construct validity of the HSE-MS IT, by relating it with another widely used instrument, the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), and by examining its relationships with a set of work-related stress outcomes. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to a sample of employees in an Italian municipality. The questionnaire included the HSE-MS IT, self-reported measures of job satisfaction, job motivation and stress at work, the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the reduced form of the JCQ. RESULTS: A total of 760 out of 779 employees completed the questionnaire. Results showed moderate to strong correlation among the corresponding HSE-MS IT and JCQ scales. Hierarchical regression highlighted the specific contribution of each of the HSE-MS IT scales in predicting three relevant work-related stress outcomes (self-reported stress, job satisfaction and job motivation), after controlling for gender, age and life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings consolidated the HSE-MS IT validity and showed the specific sensitivity of its scales to assess different aspects of work-related distress, including self-perception of stress at work. These results can have practical implications for the occupational well-being of employees