Narcissistic leaders: An asset or a liability? Leader visibility, follower responses, and group-level absenteeism.

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (7) ◽  
pp. 703-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Nevicka ◽  
Annelies E. M. Van Vianen ◽  
Annebel H. B. De Hoogh ◽  
Bart C. M. Voorn
Keyword(s):  
Group Level

Bad Apples: The Relationship Between Individual-level and Group-level Dynamics

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn S. Turner ◽  
Kristen Fox ◽  
David Pincus
Keyword(s):  
Group Level ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Relationship

Organization Versus Group-Level Safety Climate Perceptions: Association With Safety Behavior and Outcome

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueng-Hsiang Huang ◽  
Dov Zohar ◽  
Michelle Robertson ◽  
Jin Lee ◽  
Jenn Rineer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Climate ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Safety Behavior ◽  
Versus Group ◽  
Climate Perceptions

Authorities and communities: Can authorities shape cooperation with communities on a group level?

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. O'Brien ◽  
Tom R. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Group Level

QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP LEVEL INTERVENTIONS FOR FIRST EPISODE PSYCHOSIS AT THE TERTIARY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL IN UGANDA.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Kiiza Mwesiga ◽  
Noeline Nakasujja ◽  
Lawrence Nankaba ◽  
Juliet Nakku ◽  
Seggane Musisi
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Hospital ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
First Episode Psychosis ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Group Interventions ◽  
Episode Psychosis ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
The Individual

Introduction: Individual and group level interventions have the largest effect on outcomes in patients with the first episode of psychosis. The quality of these individual and group level interventions provided to first-episode psychosis patients in Uganda is unclear.Methods: The study was performed at Butabika National Psychiatric Teaching and referral hospital in Uganda. A retrospective chart review of recently discharged adult in-patients with the first episode of psychosis was first performed to determine the proportion of participants who received the different essential components for individual and group level interventions. From the different proportions, the quality of the services across the individual and group interventions was determined using the first-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). The FEPS-FS assigns a grade of 1-5 on a Likert scale depending on the proportion of patients received the different components of the intervention. Results: The final sample included 156 first-episode psychosis patients. The median age was 27 years [IOR (24-36)] with 55% of participants of the female gender. 13 essential components across the individual and group interventions were assessed and their quality quantified. All 13 essential components had poor quality with the range of scores on the FEPS-FS of 1-3. Only one essential component assessed (use of single antipsychotics) had moderate quality.Discussion: Among current services at the National psychiatric hospital of Uganda, the essential for individual and group level interventions for psychotic disorders are of low quality. Further studies are required on how the quality of these interventions can be improved.

Reply to Connor and Evers (2020): Critique of the Bias of Crowds Model Simply Restates the Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Payne ◽  
Heidi A. Vuletich ◽  
Kristjen B. Lundberg
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Systemic Racism ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Core ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
The Individual

The Bias of Crowds model (Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017) argues that implicit bias varies across individuals and across contexts. It is unreliable and weakly associated with behavior at the individual level. But when aggregated to measure context-level effects, the scores become stable and predictive of group-level outcomes. We concluded that the statistical benefits of aggregation are so powerful that researchers should reconceptualize implicit bias as a feature of contexts, and ask new questions about how implicit biases relate to systemic racism. Connor and Evers (2020) critiqued the model, but their critique simply restates the core claims of the model. They agreed that implicit bias varies across individuals and across contexts; that it is unreliable and weakly associated with behavior at the individual level; and that aggregating scores to measure context-level effects makes them more stable and predictive of group-level outcomes. Connor and Evers concluded that implicit bias should be considered to really be noisily measured individual construct because the effects of aggregation are merely statistical. We respond to their specific arguments and then discuss what it means to really be a feature of persons versus situations, and multilevel measurement and theory in psychological science more broadly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document