Search

The present study will explore instances of disidentification and dissociation in survivors of childhood sexual abuse who have waived their right to anonymity in Ireland. We will employ a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2020) and draw on the social identity framework (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Haslam et al., 2009).

Building on earlier research that examined the characteristics people associate with heroes, our research examined similarities and differences of the hero stereotype across cultures. Specifically, in Study 1 (N = 209) and Study 2 (N = 298), we investigated lay perceptions of heroes among participants from a collectivistic culture. In Study 3 (N = 586), we examined whether group membership could be determined by participants’ centrality ratings of the combined set of hero features. In Study 4 (N = 197), we tested whether the hero features that distinguish American and Chinese participants, when used to describe a target person, influence the impression that the target person is a hero. In Study 5 (N = 158) and Study 6 (N= 591), we investigated cultural differences in perceptions of different types of heroes (e.g., social, martial, civil) and the influence of individualism and collectivism on the perception of those heroes.

Survivors of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) can experience dissociation because of their trauma. Those survivors can also experience stigma stemming from their traumatic experiences, which may encourage disidentification from the stigmatized group (i.e., other survivors of ACEs). However, the relationships between disidentification and dissociation have not been empirically tested. Using a social identity framework, we examined whether stigmatized trauma perceptions (the degree to which a trauma is perceived as a stigmatized experience) predicted dissociative symptoms and disidentification using cross-sectional survey data. An online community sample of ACEs survivors (N = 181) completed measures of disidentification and dissociation. Stigmatized trauma perceptions were measured greater dissociation. The findings demonstrate a link between social disidentification and personal dissociation.Further research can explore this link in other types of stigmatized traumas (e.g., suicide)by respondents rating the extent to which they perceived ACEs are a stigmatizing experience. Path analysis revealed higher stigmatized trauma perceptions predicted more disidentification which resulted in greater dissociative symptoms, after controlling for ACEs and gender. The results show that survivors are more likely to disidentify from people with similar experiences when they feel their trauma is stigmatized. This disidentification was associated with The findings demonstrate a link between social disidentification and personal dissociation. Further research can explore this link in other types of stigmatized traumas (e.g., suicide)

Using a scoping review methodology, we aim to provide a broad overview of all current evidence regarding the role of leadership in social movements.

Understanding what predicts wellbeing and burnout in those on the frontline.

The social cure helps us understand the processes underlying the connection between relationships and well-being by highlighting the role our group memberships and the social identity and social support we receive from these groups. ‘Groups for Health’ (G4H) was developed in order to help people improve their social connectedness and reduce social issues or psychological distress, that can be caused due to disconnectedness. Social Identity Mapping (SIM), is part of the G4H intervention but, can also be used separately in order to help reduce psychological distress. These are relatively new interventions therefore the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the existing evidence of ‘Social Cure’ interventions, known as ‘Groups 4 Health’ and ‘Social Identity Mapping’, and their impact on mental health. The objectives of this review are to: 1) to describe the uses of the ‘Social Cure’ interventions; 2) to describe the measures that have been utilised to assess these interventions; and 3) to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions for improving mental health and well-being outcomes.

Understanding what predicts wellbeing and burnout in those on the frontline.

Data files accompanying studies investigating Moral Dumbfounding

A seminal study by Triplett provided initial evidence for the social facilitation effect, and over the last century research has demonstrated this effect across a range of settings. However, despite the importance of Triplett’s study no research has replicated the original study paradigm. Furthermore, in the context of research advances and methodological rigour, some elements of the original study weaken the validity of the observed findings. We address these critical limitations and replicate the original study, employing a standardized study protocol to minimise potential confounds, such as practice effects. A minimum of 400 school-aged children will be recruited. Using a purpose-built apparatus, participants will complete each trial twice — once alone and once in competition with another participant. Trial order will be standardized. The results of this study will extend research on social facilitation by replicating the original study paradigm and exploring potential age and gender effects.

Mortality threats are among the strongest psychological threats that an individual can encounter. Previous research shows that mortality threats lead people to engage in unhealthy compensatory consumption (i.e., overeating), as a maladaptive coping response to threat. In this paper, we propose that reminders of heroes when experiencing mortality threat increases perceptions of personal power, which in turn buffers the need to engage in unhealthy compensatory consumption. We test and find support for our predictions in a series of four studies that include real‐world Twitter data after a series of terrorist attacks in 2016–2017, and three experimental studies conducted online and in the field with behavioral measures after Day of the Dead and during COVID‐19 pandemic. These findings advance the literature on compensatory consumption, mortality threats, and the psychological functions of heroes.

Registration for a systematic review on social factors in burnout.

Evidence given on 24th August 2021 by Dr Rachel Sumner (UoG) and Dr Elaine Kinsella (UL) to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus inquiry on the impact of the pandemic on frontline healthcare workers. Evidence based on work by Dr Rachel Sumner and Dr Elaine Kinsella.

Whilst the Covid-19 pandemic moves into a new phase with the successful roll out of vaccines in adults in the UK, there is an opportunity to reflect, re-evaluate, and reconfigure public health responses. Of importance is the need to defend and protect the frontline workforce who have sacrificed so much over the last 18 months. The present essay summarises key recommendations from frontline workers to policymakers with specific reference to the preparation needed for the Autumn and Winter to come. The participants from the CV19 Heroes Project give voice to concerns over the unique challenges posed by the coming months, and speak of the need to embed evidence into future policy to both compensate existing, and prevent future, occupational exposure to Covid-19, the experience of Long Covid, and the overall psychological and physical scars experienced from what has been a traumatic period of their working lives.

This project has been established to develop and test the theory of Solidarity Appraisal - a concept derived from research with frontline workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the concept of solidarity appraisal has been developed through this work, we are keen to see how this may be related to other aspects of occupations and roles, and how this may account for burnout beyond existing models. The project has two current components: (i) theory development; and (ii) testing. The theory development component is initiated with a perspective piece submitted that describes the theory, its origins, and potential applications. The testing component will be broader work including scoping for the potential for meta-ethnography or use of qualitative secondary data, as well as empirical work. Alongside this, the concept of the Hero Contract will also be developed as a key component of supporting the Solidarity Appraisal concept, specifically within work that is often labelled heroic.

Moral dumbfounding occurs when people defend a moral judgement even though they cannot provide a reason in support of this judgement. It manifests as an admission of not having reasons, or the use of unsupported declarations (“it’s just wrong”) or tautological reasons (“because it’s incest”) as justifications for a judgment. We test a dual-processes explanation of moral dumbfounding, where moral dumbfounding is an example of conflict between a habitual response (making a judgement) and a response that results from deliberation (providing a reason for the judgement). The dumbfounding paradigm involves three possible responses: (a) providing reasons for a judgement (deliberative/controlled process); (b) accepting the counter-arguments and rating the behaviour as “not wrong” (habitual/automatic process); (c) a dumbfounded response (habitual/automatic process). Cognitive load manipulations have been shown to inhibit deliberative responding. We present 5 studies in which dumbfounded responding was investigated under cognitive load manipulations. We hypothesised that rates of providing reasons would be reduced under cognitive load. The identification of reasons was inhibited in Studies 1 and 3, but not in Studies 2, 4 or 5. The results provide weak evidence for a dual-process explanation of moral dumbfounding. We found some evidence that dumbfounded responding may be linked with Need for Cognition.

We propose that the making of moral judgments is an act of categorization; people categorize events, behaviors, or people as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This approach builds on the currently dominant dual-processing approach to moral judgment in the literature, providing important links to developmental mechanisms in category formation, while avoiding recently developed critiques of dual-systems views. Stable categories are the result of skill in making context-relevant categorizations. People learn that various objects (events, behaviors, people etc.) can be categorized as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Repetition and rehearsal then results in these categorizations becoming habitualized. According to this skill formation account of moral categorization, the learning, and the habitualization of the forming of, moral categories, occurs as part of goal-directed activity, and is sensitive to various contextual influences. Reviewing the literature we highlight the essential similarity of categorization principles and processes of moral judgments. Using a categorization framework, we provide an overview of moral category formation as basis for moral judgments. The implications for our understanding of the making of moral judgments are discussed.

Moral dumbfounding occurs when people maintain a moral judgment even though they cannot provide reasons for it. Recently, questions have been raised about whether dumbfounding is a real phenomenon. Two reasons have been proposed as guiding the judgments of dumbfounded participants: harm-based reasons (believing an action may cause harm) or norm-based reasons (breaking a moral norm is inherently wrong). Participants who endorsed either reason were excluded from analysis, and instances of moral dumbfounding seemingly reduced to non-significance. We argue that endorsing a reason is not sufficient evidence that a judgment is grounded in that reason. Stronger evidence should additionally account for (a) articulating a given reason, and (b) consistently applying the reason in different situations. Building on this, we develop revised exclusion criteria across 3 studies. Study 1 included an open-ended response option immediately after the presentation of a moral scenario. Responses were coded for mention of harm-based or norm-based reasons. Participants were excluded from analysis if they both articulated and endorsed a given reason. Using these revised criteria for exclusion, we found evidence for dumbfounding, as measured by the selecting of an admission of not having reasons. Studies 2 and 3 included a further three questions assessing the consistency with which people apply harm-based reasons. As predicted, few participants consistently applied, articulated, and endorsed harm-based reasons, and evidence for dumbfounding was found.

peer-reviewed Research on heroism typically seems fascinating to people in everyday life: they ask insightful and interesting questions about the research, offer their personal reflections on heroes, and sometimes share details of significant life events triggered by the conversation. Heroism is an approachable topic that appears to influence individuals and groups in extraordinary ways. Indeed, heroes have been described as “support for all human life and the inspiration of philosophy, poetry, and the arts” and function as “a vehicle for the profoundest moral and metaphysical instruction” (Campbell, 1949, p. 257). Campbell further suggests that the metaphors by which heroes live have been “brooded upon, searched, and discussed for centuries: they have served whole societies, furthermore, as the mainstays of thought and life” (p. 256).