Assessment of Subjective Experiences of Boys Entering the Community From a Correctional School

The purpose of this study was to explore, classify, and evaluate the personal experiences of juvenile offenders following release from a state training school. During a two month period beginning in the fall of 1967, a group of twenty-three releasees from the MacLaren School for Boys in Woodburn, Oregon were interviewed on a weekly basis in the Portland metropolitan area. The boys, ranging in age from thirteen to seventeen were contacted in their homes, schools, and other settings to learn of positive, negative, and critical experiences encountered in the community. Open ended questions based upon a twenty- seven item schedule were administered to the boys, focusing upon personal experiences in six major areas: school, family, peer group, community, work and authority. Responses were recorded verbatim and classified according to the boys\u27 judgments of positive and negative connotations. Critical experiences were also recorded to determine specific incidents which brought the boys into contact with legal authorities or otherwise seriously affected their parole status. Positive, negative, and critical experiences from this study were analyzed both descriptively and statistically. Null hypotheses were tested to determine the quality, quantity, and intensity of experiences with respect to such major variables as age of the boys, race, length of stay in the community, records of school attendance, and personality inventory characteristics. Experiences were similarly related with respect to other variables found to be present as a result of the interviewing experience. Findings yielded evidence to indicate a predominance of negative experiences in the boys’ contacts with the community following release. The highest proportion of these occurred within the boys’ families, followed by contacts with authority and school, respectively. Peer group relationships for the boys indicated the highest proportion of positive experiences when compared with other major categories

Empathy: a review of the concept

The inconsistent definition of empathy has had a negative impact on both research and practice. The aim of this article is to review and critically appraise a range of definitions of empathy and, through considered analysis, to develop a new conceptualisation. From the examination of 43 discrete definitions, 8 themes relating to the nature of empathy emerged: “distinguishing empathy from other concepts”; “cognitive or affective?”; “congruent or incongruent?”; “subject to other stimuli?”; “self/other distinction or merging?”; “trait or state influences?”; “has a behavioural outcome?”; and “automatic or controlled?” The relevance and validity of each theme is assessed and a new conceptualisation of empathy is offered. The benefits of employing a more consistent and complete definition of empathy are discussed

Interpreting signals in other people's behavior to sense things about them and to infer things about their world

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd In this article, we propose a new framework for investigating how accurately and by what process people read others' minds—a process that requires perceivers to make a retrodictive inference. In this context, we discuss the value of a novel methodological approach that complements the conceptual framework. This framework is formulated on the basis of a series of empirical articles emerging over the past few years in which the ideas appear in nascent form. Retrodiction is the process in which, on observing a person's behavior (often but not exclusively a facial expression), people are equipped not only to sense the underlying inner state but also to infer the event that caused that inner state. Indeed, the goal of mindreading need not always be to identify an inner state explicitly but to infer the event that caused the inner state. Doing so is adaptive in that it permits access to a more expansive view of the world through the lens of another mind. This view of mindreading naturally leads to a reconsideration of methods that are fit for purpose and leads to testable hypotheses

Evidence of a dynamic association between intergroup contact and intercultural competence

Three studies explored the association between intergroup contact and intercultural competence. Study 1 and Study 2 provided evidence of a cross-sectional association between intergroup contact and intercultural competence in which positive contact was associated with increased intercultural competence and negative contact was associated with reductions in this outcome. In Study 3 longitudinal data allowed us to test the possibility of mutual influence between these variables whereby intercultural competence is not only a consequence of intergroup contact, but is also predictive of the quality of future intergroup contact. Results showed that positive contact was longitudinally associated with improvements in intercultural competence, and that higher intercultural competence was associated with a reduction in future negative contact. Findings speak to the importance of taking a dynamic outlook on contact effects. The beneficial consequences of positive contact may be the same variables capable of transforming future contact encounters and reducing the likelihood of negative interactions

How accurately can other people infer your thoughts -- and does culture matter?

This research investigated how accurately people infer what others are thinking after observing a brief sample of their behaviour and whether culture/similarity is a relevant factor. Target participants (14 British and 14 Mediterraneans) were cued to think about either positive or negative events they had experienced. Subsequently, perceiver participants (16 British and 16 Mediterraneans) watched videos of the targets thinking about these things. Perceivers (both groups) were significantly accurate in judging when targets had been cued to think of something positive versus something negative, indicating notable inferential ability. Additionally, Mediterranean perceivers were better than British perceivers in making such inferences, irrespective of nationality of the targets, something that was statistically accounted for by corresponding group differences in levels of independently measured collectivism. The results point to the need for further research to investigate the possibility that being reared in a collectivist culture fosters ability in interpreting others’ behaviour

Decision or No Decision: How Do Patient–Physician Interactions End and What Matters?

BACKGROUND: A clearly stated clinical decision can induce a cognitive closure in patients and is an important investment in the end of patient–physician communications. Little is known about how often explicit decisions are made in primary care visits. OBJECTIVE: To use an innovative videotape analysis approach to assess physicians’ propensity to state decisions explicitly, and to examine the factors influencing decision patterns. DESIGN: We coded topics discussed in 395 videotapes of primary care visits, noting the number of instances and the length of discussions on each topic, and how discussions ended. A regression analysis tested the relationship between explicit decisions and visit factors such as the nature of topics under discussion, instances of discussion, the amount of time the patient spoke, and competing demands from other topics. RESULTS: About 77% of topics ended with explicit decisions. Patients spoke for an average of 58 seconds total per topic. Patients spoke more during topics that ended with an explicit decision, (67 seconds), compared with 36 seconds otherwise. The number of instances of a topic was associated with higher odds of having an explicit decision (OR = 1.73, p < 0.01). Increases in the number of topics discussed in visits (OR = 0.95, p < .05), and topics on lifestyle and habits (OR = 0.60, p < .01) were associated with lower odds of explicit decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although discussions often ended with explicit decisions, there were variations related to the content and dynamics of interactions. We recommend strengthening patients’ voice and developing clinical tools, e.g., an “exit prescription,” to improving decision making