A. Laguna-Camacho, Eva García-Manjarrez, Mallory Frayn, B. Knäuper, M. V. Domínguez-García, Ericka Escalante-Izeta
Abstract The aim of the present study was to examine the perceived healthiness of breakfasts and the underlying beliefs influencing that perception against expert nutritional evaluation. Women with overweight or obesity (N = 120) were asked to recall the food items they consumed during a recent “healthy” or “unhealthy” breakfast. They also reported why the breakfast was healthy or unhealthy and rated its healthiness. Two nutritionists categorised the beliefs about why the breakfasts were “healthy” or “unhealthy” and evaluated the healthiness of each breakfast following nutrition guidelines. Generally, the meals considered as healthy versus unhealthy breakfasts and related beliefs about why the breakfasts were healthy or unhealthy matched food-based nutrition guidelines. Participants were found to perceive healthy breakfasts as more healthy and unhealthy breakfasts as less healthy than nutritionists did. Participants frequently mentioned the belief that their breakfast was healthy because “it contained fruit” or that their breakfast was unhealthy because “it contained fat.” Such salient healthy or unhealthy food items may guide the perception of breakfast healthiness and could be a target for nutrition counselling.
{"title":"Perceived Healthiness of Breakfasts in Women with Overweight or Obesity Match Expert Recommendations","authors":"A. Laguna-Camacho, Eva García-Manjarrez, Mallory Frayn, B. Knäuper, M. V. Domínguez-García, Ericka Escalante-Izeta","doi":"10.1515/psych-2018-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of the present study was to examine the perceived healthiness of breakfasts and the underlying beliefs influencing that perception against expert nutritional evaluation. Women with overweight or obesity (N = 120) were asked to recall the food items they consumed during a recent “healthy” or “unhealthy” breakfast. They also reported why the breakfast was healthy or unhealthy and rated its healthiness. Two nutritionists categorised the beliefs about why the breakfasts were “healthy” or “unhealthy” and evaluated the healthiness of each breakfast following nutrition guidelines. Generally, the meals considered as healthy versus unhealthy breakfasts and related beliefs about why the breakfasts were healthy or unhealthy matched food-based nutrition guidelines. Participants were found to perceive healthy breakfasts as more healthy and unhealthy breakfasts as less healthy than nutritionists did. Participants frequently mentioned the belief that their breakfast was healthy because “it contained fruit” or that their breakfast was unhealthy because “it contained fat.” Such salient healthy or unhealthy food items may guide the perception of breakfast healthiness and could be a target for nutrition counselling.","PeriodicalId":74357,"journal":{"name":"Open psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/psych-2018-0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48294963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Background: Theoretical predictions and experimental findings concerning the relationship between risk taking and accumulated resources are contradictory. In contrast to laboratory experiments, studies conducted in an ecologically valid environment allow for the evaluation of available resources and the motivational impact of potentially serious consequences for risk taking. Objective: Our aim was to (i) examine the influence of available resources on risk taking in an ecologically valid field experiment; and (ii) to compare “real life” and laboratory experiments assessing risk taking. Method: To reproduce real decisions involving real stakes, the students were asked to choose between exam questions representing different levels of difficulty. Available resources of the students were defined as the amount of points accumulated during the semester. In parallel, the laboratory experiments were conducted to assess risk taking in a laboratory setting. Results: The two experimental setups yielded different results. In the field experiment, risk taking decreased with the available resources, whereas the laboratory experiments suggested an inverse tendency. The influence of contextual effects was only prominent in the field experiment.Conclusion: The results of the field experiment support the variable risk preference model, whereas the risk-sensitivity theory could only be validated in the laboratory setting.
{"title":"Risk Taking with Variable Resources: a Field and a Laboratory Experiment","authors":"K. Faragó, Ajna Uatkán","doi":"10.1515/psych-2018-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Theoretical predictions and experimental findings concerning the relationship between risk taking and accumulated resources are contradictory. In contrast to laboratory experiments, studies conducted in an ecologically valid environment allow for the evaluation of available resources and the motivational impact of potentially serious consequences for risk taking. Objective: Our aim was to (i) examine the influence of available resources on risk taking in an ecologically valid field experiment; and (ii) to compare “real life” and laboratory experiments assessing risk taking. Method: To reproduce real decisions involving real stakes, the students were asked to choose between exam questions representing different levels of difficulty. Available resources of the students were defined as the amount of points accumulated during the semester. In parallel, the laboratory experiments were conducted to assess risk taking in a laboratory setting. Results: The two experimental setups yielded different results. In the field experiment, risk taking decreased with the available resources, whereas the laboratory experiments suggested an inverse tendency. The influence of contextual effects was only prominent in the field experiment.Conclusion: The results of the field experiment support the variable risk preference model, whereas the risk-sensitivity theory could only be validated in the laboratory setting.","PeriodicalId":74357,"journal":{"name":"Open psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/psych-2018-0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43164245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mariela E. Jaffé, Marc-André Reinhard, K. Ask, Rainer Greifeneder
Abstract Previous research has indicated that individuals typically perform quite poorly in discerning truths from lies, and that confidence in judged veracity is not predictive of objective accuracy. In this experiment, we investigated the joint influence of construal level and judgment mode on detection accuracy and confidence. Participants (N = 161) watched eight videotaped true and false statements while adopting a high or low level of construal, and received instructions to detect the deceptiveness of the statements either before (online judgments) or after (offline judgments) watching the videos. Contrary to our predictions, construal level and judgment mode did not influence detection accuracy independently or interactively. However, low level participants were less confident when making judgments offline as opposed to online, whereas the confidence of high level participants was unaffected by judgment mode. Implications for deception detection research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Truth or Tale? How Construal Level and Judgment Mode Affect Confidence and Accuracy in Deception Detection","authors":"Mariela E. Jaffé, Marc-André Reinhard, K. Ask, Rainer Greifeneder","doi":"10.1515/psych-2018-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Previous research has indicated that individuals typically perform quite poorly in discerning truths from lies, and that confidence in judged veracity is not predictive of objective accuracy. In this experiment, we investigated the joint influence of construal level and judgment mode on detection accuracy and confidence. Participants (N = 161) watched eight videotaped true and false statements while adopting a high or low level of construal, and received instructions to detect the deceptiveness of the statements either before (online judgments) or after (offline judgments) watching the videos. Contrary to our predictions, construal level and judgment mode did not influence detection accuracy independently or interactively. However, low level participants were less confident when making judgments offline as opposed to online, whereas the confidence of high level participants was unaffected by judgment mode. Implications for deception detection research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":74357,"journal":{"name":"Open psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/psych-2018-0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42532441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Juveniles commit a significant portion of the sexual abuse perpetrated on other children. Treatment for juveniles with sexual behavior problems has moved from modified adult treatments to more developmentally appropriate approaches. Although cognitive-behavioral therapy is the most commonly used approach, research indicates that inclusion of significant others in the juvenile’s life is important when working with these youth. The inclusion of the juvenile’s family is seen as especially vital in treatment success. The current article reviews treatment outcomes, as measured by recidivism (re-offense) rates, for juvenile males completing a county juvenile sex offender treatment program. The program emphasizes family involvement and collaboration with juvenile probation officers, correctional officer, attorneys, and judges in the ongoing treatment as well as support of the juvenile and his/her family. Results indicate a sexual recidivism rate of 7.2% which is consistent with meta-analyses of research on sexual recidivism in treatment programs. The recidivism rate for non-sexual crimes was 33.7%, which is lower than typically reported in meta-analyses of treatment outcomes. The treatment program was equally effective for all juveniles, regardless of race.
{"title":"Juveniles with Sexual Behavior Problems: A Treatment Program Evaluation","authors":"J. D. Calvert, T. Bauer","doi":"10.1515/psych-2018-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Juveniles commit a significant portion of the sexual abuse perpetrated on other children. Treatment for juveniles with sexual behavior problems has moved from modified adult treatments to more developmentally appropriate approaches. Although cognitive-behavioral therapy is the most commonly used approach, research indicates that inclusion of significant others in the juvenile’s life is important when working with these youth. The inclusion of the juvenile’s family is seen as especially vital in treatment success. The current article reviews treatment outcomes, as measured by recidivism (re-offense) rates, for juvenile males completing a county juvenile sex offender treatment program. The program emphasizes family involvement and collaboration with juvenile probation officers, correctional officer, attorneys, and judges in the ongoing treatment as well as support of the juvenile and his/her family. Results indicate a sexual recidivism rate of 7.2% which is consistent with meta-analyses of research on sexual recidivism in treatment programs. The recidivism rate for non-sexual crimes was 33.7%, which is lower than typically reported in meta-analyses of treatment outcomes. The treatment program was equally effective for all juveniles, regardless of race.","PeriodicalId":74357,"journal":{"name":"Open psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/psych-2018-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66812274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：