Search

Concern about the welfare of professional dance students is growing as it becomes clearer that the training is not producing emotionally healthy and mature young people. Psychodynamic ideas and concepts offer a means of analysing the problems of the training and indicating where change needs to be implemented. This paper looks first at the areas of adolescent development towards separation, autonomy, the creation of peer relationships and the development of sexual identity and awareness, and shows how traditional dance training fails to facilitate their growth. The paper then discusses envy and competition and argues that they need to be addressed within dance training if they are not to be so destructive. The paper then suggests that group theory could enable the better use of the dance class. Finally, the idea of the body storyline is used to show that dance training has the capacity to have a creative and remedial effect on students, if training institutions provide a sufficiently facilitating environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberate firesetting research predominantly focuses on apprehended populations. In contrast, this paper focuses on the prevalence and characteristics of un-apprehended firesetters living in the UK. Social media was utilized to recruit 232 participants for an online questionnaire. Two hundred and twenty-five people answered a question relating to deliberate firesetting. Forty participants (17.78%) indicated that they had ignited a deliberate fire and were classified as un-apprehended firesetters. Firesetting was most common in childhood and adolescence. Relative to non-firesetters, un-apprehended deliberate firesetters were more likely to report; a diagnoses of a psychiatric illness, a diagnosis of a behavioural problem, having been suspended from school, a history of suicide attempts, experimenting with fire before the age of 10 years old, and having a family member who also ignited a deliberate fire. Un-apprehended firesetters also scored significantly higher compared to non-firesetters on theFire Setting Scaleand theFire Proclivity Scale[Gannon, T. A., & Barrowcliffe, E. R. (2012). Firesetting in the general population: The development and validation of the Fire Setting and Fire Proclivity Scales.Legal and Criminological Psychology,17(1), 105–122], theFire Interest Rating Scale[Murphy, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (1996). Analysis of motivation in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap) who set fires.Psychology, Crime & Law,2(3), 153–164], theNovaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory[Novaco, R. W. (2003). The Novaco AngerScaleandProvocation Inventory: NAS-PI. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services], theBoredom Proneness Scale – Short Form[Vodanovich, S. J., Wallace, J. C., & Kass, S. J. (2005). A confirmatory approach to the factor structure of the Boredom Proneness Scale: Evidence for a two-factor short form.Journal of Personality Assessment,85(3), 295–303], and theMeasure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates Scale[Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (1999). Measures of criminal attitudes and associates: User guide. Unpublished instrument and user guide]. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]