Glass children: The lived experiences of siblings of people with a disability or chronic illness

Siblings of disabled or chronically ill children are often hidden family members and their needs for support might not be met. Current research however is limited in its understanding of siblings' lived experiences. This study uses semi-structured interviews to explore the lived experiences of 16 individuals (referred to as siblings) who grew up with a disabled or chronically ill brother or sister. Participants reflected on their childhood and adolescent experiences as siblings, focusing on their social interactions and relationships, social support, and wellbeing. Using thematic analysis, we identified four distinct but theoretically related themes; participants experienced (a) feelings of invisibility during social interactions, (b) psychological difficulties due to the internalisation of family roles or life conditions, and (c) feelings of guilt and self-blame. Finally, (d) social support was central as siblings were sometimes unable to understand their own needs, and support from family and peer groups helped them have their negative experiences validated. Our findings suggest greater support for siblings is required with a focus on addressing negative feelings and the availability of social support from people with similar experiences

Centre of pressure, vertical ground reaction forces and neuromuscular responses of special-forces soldiers to 43km load carriage in the field

The primary purpose of this study was to examine lateral deviations in centre of pressure as a result of an extreme duration load carriage task, with particular focus on heel contact. Twenty (n=17 males, n=3 females) soldiers from a Special Operation Forces unit (body mass: 80.72±21.49kg; stature:178.25±8.75cm; age: 26±9yrs) underwent gait plantar pressure assessment and vertical jump testing before and after a 43km load carriage event (duration 817.02[32.66]min) carrying a total external load of 29.80 (1.05)kg. Vertical jump height decreased by 18.62%±16.85% (0.30±0.08m to 0.24±0.07m) p<.001. Loading peak and mid stance force minimum were significantly increased after load carriage (2.59±0.51BW vs. 2.81±0.61BW; p=.035; dGlass=0.44 and 1.28±0.40BW vs. 1.46±0.41BW; p=.015 dGlass=0.45, respectively) and increases in lateral centre of pressure displacement were observed as a result of the load carriage task 14.64±3.62mm to 16.97 ±3.94mm p<.029. In conclusion, load carriage instigated a decrease in neuromuscular function alongside increases in ground reaction forces associated with injury risk and centre of pressure changes associated with ankle sprain risk. Practitioners should consider that possible reduction in ankle stability remains even once the load had been removed, suggesting soldiers are still at increased risk of injury even once the load has been removed

Collective victimhood in populist media about Brexit: rage against the machine?

This paper outlines an ongoing qualitative study in social psychology, with a pilot study completed and the main study currently at the data analysis stage. We examine how collective and competitive victimhood are invoked in populist rhetoric and media coverage of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union (Brexit). Brexit has been portrayed by its proponents as a project on behalf of ordinary British people against an out-of-touch liberal elite and a malevolent European Union (EU), with the opposing campaign to remain in the EU commonly characterised as an alarmist “project fear” (see Bartholomew, 2017; Durrheim et al., 2018; Forsyth, 2016; Malik, 2018). This populist idea of ordinary people as victims of manipulative and mendacious elites seems to relate to social-psychological work on collective and competitive victimhood (Bar-Tal et al., 2009; Noor et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2012; Vollhardt et al., 2014). According to this account, victimhood can be used as political capital to justify grievances and intergroup conflict. Research on this topic has mostly used quantitative methods, but first attempts have been made to use qualitative methods to show rhetorical functions of collective and competitive victimhood (McNeill et al., 2017). Building on these theoretical and methodological foundations, we use thematic analysis and discourse analysis to show how victimhood is mobilised in British media to garner support for Brexit, and how this connects with concepts such as collective relative deprivation (e.g. Abrams & Grant, 2012; Runciman, 1966) and relative gratification (Dambrun et al., 2006; Guimond & Dambrun, 2002; Jetten et al., 2015). In doing so, we contribute to a social-psychological perspective on Brexit, develop further the concepts of collective and competitive victimhood, and connect the micro-level of language used in the media sphere to the macro-level of populist movements in democratic societies

A glossary for research on human crowd dynamics

This article presents a glossary of terms that are frequently used in research on human crowds. This topic is inherently multidisciplinary as it includes work in and across computer science, engineering, mathematics, physics, psychology and social science, for example. We do not view the glossary presented here as a collection of finalised and formal definitions. Instead, we suggest it is a snapshot of current views and the starting point of an ongoing process that we hope will be useful in providing some guidance on the use of terminology to develop a mutual understanding across disciplines. The glossary was developed collaboratively during a multidisciplinary meeting. We deliberately allow several definitions of terms, to reflect the confluence of disciplines in the field. This also reflects the fact not all contributors necessarily agree with all definitions in this glossary

COVIDiSTRESS diverse dataset on psychological and behavioural outcomes one year into the COVID-19 pandemic

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVIDiSTRESS Consortium launched an open-access global survey to understand and improve individuals’ experiences related to the crisis. A year later, we extended this line of research by launching a new survey to address the dynamic landscape of the pandemic. This survey was released with the goal of addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion by working with over 150 researchers across the globe who collected data in 48 languages and dialects across 137 countries. The resulting cleaned dataset described here includes 15,740 of over 20,000 responses. The dataset allows cross-cultural study of psychological wellbeing and behaviours a year into the pandemic. It includes measures of stress, resilience, vaccine attitudes, trust in government and scientists, compliance, and information acquisition and misperceptions regarding COVID-19. Open-access raw and cleaned datasets with computed scores are available. Just as our initial COVIDiSTRESS dataset has facilitated government policy decisions regarding health crises, this dataset can be used by researchers and policy makers to inform research, decisions, and policy. © 2022, The Author(s).U.S. Department of Education, ED: P031S190304; Texas A and M International University, TAMIU; National Research University Higher School of Economics, ВШЭThe COVIDiSTRESS Consortium would like to acknowledge the contributions of friends and collaborators in translating and sharing the COVIDiSTRESS survey, as well as the study participants. Data analysis was supported by Texas A&M International University (TAMIU) Research Grant, TAMIU Act on Ideas, and the TAMIU Advancing Research and Curriculum Initiative (TAMIU ARC) awarded by the US Department of Education Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program (Award # P031S190304). Data collection by Dmitrii Dubrov was supported within the framework of the Basic Research Program at HSE University, RF

Author Correction: COVIDiSTRESS diverse dataset on psychological and behavioural outcomes one year into the COVID-19 pandemic (Scientific Data, (2022), 9, 1, (331), 10.1038/s41597-022-01383-6)

The original version of this Article contained an error in the spelling of the author Krzysztof Hanusz, which was incorrectly given as Hanusz Krzysztof. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article