Are They Out to Get Me? Individual Differences in Nonclinical Paranoia as a Function of Narcissism and Defensive Self‐Protection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica G. Hepper ◽  
Lyn Ellett ◽  
Danielle Kerley ◽  
Jessica L. Kingston
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Ruisch ◽  
Rajen A. Anderson ◽  
David A. Pizarro

AbstractWe argue that existing data on folk-economic beliefs (FEBs) present challenges to Boyer & Petersen's model. Specifically, the widespread individual variation in endorsement of FEBs casts doubt on the claim that humans are evolutionarily predisposed towards particular economic beliefs. Additionally, the authors' model cannot account for the systematic covariance between certain FEBs, such as those observed in distinct political ideologies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Mundy

Abstract The stereotype of people with autism as unresponsive or uninterested in other people was prominent in the 1980s. However, this view of autism has steadily given way to recognition of important individual differences in the social-emotional development of affected people and a more precise understanding of the possible role social motivation has in their early development.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily F. Wissel ◽  
Leigh K. Smith

Abstract The target article suggests inter-individual variability is a weakness of microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) research, but we discuss why it is actually a strength. We comment on how accounting for individual differences can help researchers systematically understand the observed variance in microbiota composition, interpret null findings, and potentially improve the efficacy of therapeutic treatments in future clinical microbiome research.


1991 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon L. Wadle

Lack of training is only an excuse for not collaborating outside of the therapy room. With our present training, speech-language clinicians have many skills to share in the regular classroom setting. This training has provided skills in task analysis, a language focus, an appreciation and awareness of individual differences in learning, and motivational techniques.


2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4335-4350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth E. Tichenor ◽  
J. Scott Yaruss

Purpose This study explored group experiences and individual differences in the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings perceived by adults who stutter. Respondents' goals when speaking and prior participation in self-help/support groups were used to predict individual differences in reported behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Method In this study, 502 adults who stutter completed a survey examining their behaviors, thoughts, and feelings in and around moments of stuttering. Data were analyzed to determine distributions of group and individual experiences. Results Speakers reported experiencing a wide range of both overt behaviors (e.g., repetitions) and covert behaviors (e.g., remaining silent, choosing not to speak). Having the goal of not stuttering when speaking was significantly associated with more covert behaviors and more negative cognitive and affective states, whereas a history of self-help/support group participation was significantly associated with a decreased probability of these behaviors and states. Conclusion Data from this survey suggest that participating in self-help/support groups and having a goal of communicating freely (as opposed to trying not to stutter) are associated with less negative life outcomes due to stuttering. Results further indicate that the behaviors, thoughts, and experiences most commonly reported by speakers may not be those that are most readily observed by listeners.


Author(s):  
David C. Byrne ◽  
Christa L. Themann ◽  
Deanna K. Meinke ◽  
Thais C. Morata ◽  
Mark R. Stephenson

An audiologist should be the principal provider and advocate for all hearing loss prevention activities. Many audiologists equate hearing loss prevention with industrial audiology and occupational hearing conservation programs. However, an audiologist’s involvement in hearing loss prevention should not be confined to that one particular practice setting. In addition to supervising occupational programs, audiologists are uniquely qualified to raise awareness of hearing risks, organize public health campaigns, promote healthy hearing, implement intervention programs, and monitor outcomes. For example, clinical audiologists can show clients how to use inexpensive sound level meters, noise dosimeters, or phone apps to measure noise levels, and recommend appropriate hearing protection. Audiologists should identify community events that may involve hazardous exposures and propose strategies to minimize risks to hearing. Audiologists can help shape the knowledge, beliefs, motivations, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals toward self-protection. An audiologist has the education, tools, opportunity, and strategic position to facilitate or promote hearing loss surveillance and prevention services and activities. This article highlights real-world examples of the various roles and substantial contributions audiologists can make toward hearing loss prevention goals.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document