The Influence of Inequality, Responsibility and Justifiability on Reports of Group-Based Guilt for Ingroup Privilege

Although members of several social groups report feeling guilt because of their group’s actions, average reports of group-based guilt tend to be quite low. We investigate three antecedents of group-based guilt derived from research on social justice and interpersonal emotion. We find that Whites, men and women perceive inequality, responsibility and justifiability of group differences to the same extent. Moreover, each factor is a key antecedent of guilt for Whites, men and women. We also find an interaction between justifiability and responsibility such that reports of group-based guilt increase as perceptions of ingroup responsibility increase and justifications for group differences decrease. Given the beneficial consequences of group-based guilt for intergroup relations, it is important to understand what factors lead to group-based guilt

Seeing Through Their Eyes: When Majority Group Members Take Collective Action on Behalf of an Outgroup

We examined majority group members' collective action on behalf of a minority group, focusing on the role of outgroup perspective taking and group-based guilt. As expected, outgroup perspective taking was positively associated with heterosexuals' collective action in response to hate crimes against non-heterosexuals and Whites' action in response to hate crimes against Blacks (Studies 1 and 2). This association was partially mediated by group-based guilt (Studies 2 and 3). We also examined the role of group-based anger; although it directly related to collective action, it did not mediate the association between perspective taking and collective action. Finally, we manipulated outgroup perspective taking to demonstrate its causal role in the subsequent outcomes (Study 3)

Identifying the barriers to kidney transplantation for patients in rural and remote areas: a scoping review

Background: Populations in rural and remote areas have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and kidney failure than those in urban or metropolitan areas, and mortality rates for chronic kidney disease are almost twice as high in remote areas compared to major cities. Despite this, patients residing in regional, rural, or remote areas are less likely to be wait-listed for or receive a kidney transplant. The objective of this scoping review is to identify specific barriers to kidney transplantation for adult patients residing in rural and remote areas from the perspectives of health professionals and patients/carers. Methods: Studies were identified through database (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus) searches and assessed against inclusion criteria to determine eligibility. A descriptive content analysis was undertaken to identify and describe barriers as key themes. Results: The 24 selected studies included both quantitative (n = 5) and qualitative (n = 19) methodologies. In studies conducted in health professional populations (n = 10) the most prevalent themes identified were perceived social and cultural issues (80%), burden of travel and distance from treatment (60%), and system-level factors as barriers (60%). In patient/carer populations (n = 14), the most prevalent themes were limited understanding of illness and treatment options (71%), dislocation from family and support network (71%), and physical and psychosocial effects of treatment (71%). Conclusions: Patients in regional, rural, and remote areas face many additional barriers to kidney transplantation, which are predominantly associated with the need to travel or relocate to access required medical testing and transplantation facilities

Leading from the Centre: A Comprehensive Examination of the Relationship between Central Playing Positions and Leadership in Sport

This is the final version of the article. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record.RESEARCH AIMS: The present article provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between playing position and leadership in sport. More particularly, it explores links between leadership and a player's interactional centrality-defined as the degree to which their playing position provides opportunities for interaction with other team members. This article examines this relationship across different leadership roles, team sex, and performance levels. RESULTS: Study 1 (N = 4443) shows that athlete leaders (and the task and motivational leader in particular) are more likely than other team members to occupy interactionally central positions in a team. Players with high interactional centrality were also perceived to be better leaders than those with low interactional centrality. Study 2 (N = 308) established this link for leadership in general, while Study 3 (N = 267) and Study 4 (N = 776) revealed that the same was true for task, motivational, and external leadership. This relationship is attenuated in sports where an interactionally central position confers limited interactional advantages. In other words, the observed patterns were strongest in sports that are played on a large field with relatively fixed positions (e.g., soccer), while being weaker in sports that are played on a smaller field where players switch positions dynamically (e.g., basketball, ice hockey). Beyond this, the pattern is broadly consistent across different sports, different sexes, and different levels of skill. CONCLUSIONS: The observed patterns are consistent with the idea that positions that are interactionally central afford players greater opportunities to do leadership-either through communication or through action. Significantly too, they also provide a basis for them to be seen to do leadership by others on their team. Thus while it is often stated that "leadership is an action, not a position," it is nevertheless the case that, when it comes to performing that action, some positions are more advantageous than others.This research was supported by a grant from Internal Funds KU Leuven, awarded to Katrien Fransen

Use of the nominal group technique to identify UK stakeholder views of the measures and domains used in the assessment of therapeutic exercise adherence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to the undertake nominal group technique (NGT) to evaluate current exercise adherence measures and isolated domains to develop stakeholder consensus on the domains to include in the measurement of therapeutic exercise adherence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. DESIGN: A 1-day NGT workshop was convened. Six exercise adherence measures were presented to the group that were identified in our recent systematic review. Discussions considered these measures and isolated domains of exercise adherence. Following discussions, consensus voting identified stakeholder agreement on the suitability of the six offered adherence measures and the inclusion of isolated domains of exercise adherence in future measurement. SETTING: One stakeholder NGT workshop held in Sheffield, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders from the UK were invited to participate from four identified populations. 14 participants represented patients, clinicians, researchers and service managers. RESULTS: All six exercise adherence measures were deemed not appropriate for use in clinical research or routine practice with no measure reaching 70% group agreement for suitability, relevance, acceptability or appropriateness. Three measures were deemed feasible to use in clinical practice. 25 constructs of exercise adherence did reach consensus threshold and were supported to be included as domains in the future measurement of exercise adherence. CONCLUSION: A mixed UK-based stakeholder group felt these six measures of exercise adherence were unacceptable. Differences in opinion within the stakeholder group highlighted the lack of consensus as to what should be measured, the type of assessment that is required and whose perspective should be sought when assessing exercise adherence. Previously unused domains may be needed alongside current ones, from both a clinician's and patient's perspective, to gain understanding and to inform future measurement development. Further conceptualisation of exercise adherence is required from similar mixed stakeholder groups in various socioeconomic and cultural populations