Search

Recognition without identification is the finding that, among recognition test items that go unidentified (as when a word is unidentified from a fragment), participants can discriminate those that were studied from those that were unstudied. In the present study, we extended this phenomenon to the more life-like situation of discriminating known from novel stimuli. Pictures of famous and nonfamous faces (Exp. 1), famous and nonfamous scenes (Exp. 2), and threatening and nonthreatening images (Exp. 3) were filtered in order to impede identification. As in list-learning recognition-without-identification paradigms, participants attempted to identify each image (e.g., whose face it was, what scene it was, or what was in the picture) and rated how familiar the image seemed on a scale of 0 ( very unfamiliar) to 10 ( very familiar). Among the unidentified stimuli, higher familiarity ratings were given to famous than to nonfamous faces (Exp. 1) and scenes (Exp. 2), and to threatening than to nonthreatening living/animate (but not to nonliving/nonanimate) images (Exp. 3). These findings suggest that even when a stimulus is too occluded to allow for conscious identification, enough information can be processed to allow a sense of familiarity or novelty with it, which appears also to be related to the sense of whether or not a living creature is a threat. That the sense of familiarity for unidentified stimuli may be related to threat detection for living or animate things suggests that it may be an adaptive aspect of human memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which assessed the psychological and educational outcomes for a group of people aged 21 years, half of whom had high levels of behavioural problems at age 11. Outcome measures include psychological functioning, educational attainment and trouble with the law. Study authors found that behavioural deviance at age 11 is highly predictive of negative outcomes in early adulthood.

Both the recognition-without-identification (RWI) and feeling-of-knowing (FOK) paradigms attempt to tap participants' sense about a target that is inaccessible. In the case of RWI, participants judge the likelihood that the inaccessible target was studied. In the case of FOKs, participants judge the likelihood that the inaccessible target will be recognized at a later point in time. The present study compared the two using a hybrid paradigm. The patterns of responding differed depending on whether the judgment was of the RWI type or the FOK type. For the former, ratings were significantly higher for studied than for unstudied inaccessible targets (the typical RWI effect). For the latter, ratings were significantly lower for studied than for unstudied inaccessible targets (a reversal of the usual RWI effect). Similarity of the targets and distractors diminished the usual RWI effect, but not its reversal in the FOK situation, suggesting that the bases of the two effects differ. A potential explanation is that when participants judge whether an inaccessible target was presented earlier, they are oriented toward relying on cue familiarity, which should be greater for cues of studied targets, whereas when they judge whether they will recognize an inaccessible target later on, they are oriented toward relying on the accessibility of information, which is greater in the unstudied condition, due to the lack of priming of the targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Male rates of suicide are significantly higher than female rates in Ireland and other Western countries, yet the process and detail of men’s suicidal action is relatively unknown. This is partly due to prevailing theoretical and methodological approaches. In this area of study, macro-level, quantitative approaches predominate; and theoretical frameworks tend to adopt unitary notions of men, as well as binary, oppositional, concepts of masculinity and femininity. This inquiry, based on in-depth interviews with 52 young Irish men who made a suicide attempt, examines suicidal behaviour at the individual level. The findings demonstrate that these men experienced high levels of emotional pain but had problems identifying symptoms and disclosing distress and this, along with the coping mechanisms used, was linked to a form of masculinity prevalent in their social environment. Dominant or hegemonic masculinity norms discouraged disclosure of emotional vulnerability, and participants used alcohol and drugs to cope – which exacerbated and prolonged their distress. Over time this led to a situation where they felt their options had narrowed, and suicidal action represented a way out of their difficulties. These men experienced significant, long-lasting, emotional pain but, in the context of lives lived in environments where prevailing constructions of masculinity constrained its expression, they opted for suicide rather than disclose distress and seek help. Underpinning this study is a presumption that binary notions of male and female emotions lack substance, but that the expression of emotions is gender-specific and constrained in some social localities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study uses the Delphi expert consensus method to work with lived-experience experts and establish research priorities to advance our understanding of male suicide risk and recovery. Items for the Delphi were generated via findings from two recent quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews on male suicide, a comprehensive gray literature search, responses to a global survey on male suicide, and feedback from a panel of 10 international academic/clinical male suicide experts. A two-round Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among 242 lived-experience experts representing 34 countries on 135 potential male suicide research questions. Panelists were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale from should not be included to essential. Consensus was defined as 80% of respondents scoring an item as "essential" or "important." After two Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 87 items. The final questions were then grouped by the author team and expert academic/clinical panel into thematic clusters to create a 22-point agenda of research priorities. Like all methodologies, there are weaknesses to the Delphi method, not least that the experts employed in a Delphi study do not represent all experts on a topic. We note that many items that did not make it to the top of the research agenda related to minority experiences. All the questions prioritized in this agenda can be applied to different demographics. However, minority populations may require tailored Delphi's using expert panels drawn specifically from those groups. A final agenda of 22 research priorities was developed. Questions related to 10 thematic domains: (a) relationships with others, (b) relationship with self, (c) relationship with emotions, (d) mental health, (e) suicidal behaviors, (f) early-life experiences, (g) structural challenges, (h) cultural challenges, (i) at-risk groups, and (j) support and recovery. The three highest endorsed items related to loneliness and isolation (98%), feelings of failure (97%), and sources of stress and emotional pain (96%) for men who are suicidal. Public Significance Statement: This DELPHI study is a collaboration with male suicide lived-experience experts. Together, we have prioritized an agenda for the next iteration of male suicide risk and recovery research. We hope this agenda can help global colleagues to strategically target resources to deepen our understanding of the male suicide crisis, to develop effective interventions, policies, and public understanding, and ultimately help more men at risk of suicide to access a dignified, meaningful, and purposeful life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]