Search

This study investigates the different roles played by protective factors and risk factors-and by particular protective and risk factors-when the concern is with accounting for adolescent problem behavior than when the concern is with accounting for adolescent pro-social behavior. The protective and risk factor literature on adolescent problem behavior reveals considerable conceptual and operational ambiguity; an aim of the present study was to advance understanding in this domain of inquiry by providing a systematic conceptualization of protection and risk and of their measurement. Within the systematic framework of Problem Behavior Theory, four protective and four risk factors are assessed in a cross-national study of both problem behavior and pro-social behavior involving large adolescent samples in China (N = 1,368) and the US (N = 1,087), in grades 9, 10, and 11; females 56 %, US; 50 %, China. The findings reveal quite different roles for protection and risk, and for particular protective and risk factors, when the outcome criterion is problem behavior than when it is pro-social behavior. The protective factor, Controls Protection, which engages rule and regulations and sanctions in the adolescent's ecology, emerges as most important in influencing problem behavior, but it plays a relatively minor role in relationship to pro-social behavior. By contrast, Models Protection, the presence of pro-social models in the adolescent's ecology, and Support Protection, the presence of interest and care in that same ecology, have no significant relationship to problem behavior variation, but they are both the major predictors of variation in pro-social behavior. The findings are robust across the samples from the two very diverse societies. These results suggest that greater attention be given to protection in problem behavior research and that a more nuanced perspective is needed about the roles that particular protective and risk factors play in reducing problem behavior and in promoting pro-social behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term ‘altruism’ is often used without definition, leading to contradictions in what we expect from medical students. In this reflection paper, we critique the concept of ‘altruism’ from the perspective of moral philosophy and social psychology and challenge its unquestioned usage within the medical education literature, especially that emerging from the USA. We will argue that ‘altruism’ is a social construction with a particular history, stemming from Kantian philosophy and perpetuated within newer disciplines such as social psychology. As it currently stands, ‘altruism’ seems to mean utter self-sacrifice—a position contradictory to recent recommendations by regulatory bodies in the UK, which suggest that graduates should look after the ‘self’ and achieve a work-life balance. In this article, we argue that it is undesirable to have ‘altruism’ as a learning outcome for medical students and we also argue that ‘altruism’ is not an observable behavior that can be measured. Instead, we suggest that medical educators should employ a more balanced term, borrowed from the social psychology literature i.e. pro-social behavior. We argue that whilst ‘pro-social behavior’ focuses on actions that benefit others, it does not do so at the expense of the self. In addition, it focuses on students’ observable behaviors rather than their inner motivations, so is measurable. We conclude our article by discussing the formation of physicians based upon a virtue ethics, where society and the profession are in dialogue about the telos of medicine and its virtues, and where the character of the young physician is formed within the crucible of that dialogue. Thus, central to this pro-social behavior is the concept of phronesis or prudence, including the balancing of self-interest such as self-care, and the interests of the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several studies present evidence of correlations between prenatal testosterone exposure measured with the 2D:4D ratio and behaviors such as pro-social behavior, risk and patient attitudes, and self-employment. Individuals exposed prenatally to higher levels of testosterone have lower levels of risk aversion, higher levels of patience and invest more in others, and in themselves, therefore have higher individual financial wellbeing. We test these hypotheses with a sample of 115 African-Americans who live in a low-income urban area in the U.S. The 2D:4D ratio in our sample of males and females does not have a consistent and robust correlation with risk, patient attitudes, pro-social behavior and self-employment in contrast to previous studies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)