Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research community, with some arguing that it is an inappropriate or unnecessary step within the goals of qualitative analysis. Yet ICR assessment can yield numerous benefits for qualitative studies, which include improving the systematicity, communicability, and transparency of the coding process; promoting reflexivity and dialogue within research teams; and helping convince diverse audiences of the trustworthiness of the analysis. Few guidelines exist to help researchers negotiate the assessment of ICR in qualitative analysis. The current article explains what ICR is, reviews common arguments for and against its incorporation in qualitative analysis and offers guidance on the practical elements of performing an ICR assessment.

Although the relationship between management support and readiness for change is a well-studied topic, mediating variables in this relationship are rarely examined. This paper presents the findings of an investigation into the mediating role of psychological capital (PsyCap) in the relationship between perceived management support and readiness for change. A questionnaire was administered to employees (N = 120) of a public sector organization undergoing a change initiative. Results of structural equation modelling demonstrated that PsyCap partially mediated the relationship between management support and employees' readiness for change. This indicates that employees' responses to change are shaped by both their personal psychological resources and their perceptions of the organizational environment. The findings offer a platform for positive future developments in research and practice.

The media are increasingly fascinated by neuroscience. Here, we consider how neuroscientific discoveries are thematically represented in the popular press and the implications this has for society. In communicating research, neuroscientists should be sensitive to the social consequences neuroscientific information may have once it enters the public sphere.

Much research on people's seismic adjustment activity in highly seismic areas has assumed that low levels of adjustment are attributable to insufficient awareness of seismic risk. Empirical evidence for this assumption is weak, and there is growing appreciation of the role played by sociocultural and emotional variables in risk perception and behavior. This study explored these sociocultural and emotional dimensions via 144 interviews and questionnaires, with matched samples of locals in Seattle (United States), Osaka (Japan), and Izmir (Turkey). The data showed that high awareness of possible seismic adjustment measures was not translated into behavior, with all sites demonstrating low adjustment uptake, though the North Americans adopted significantly more adjustments than the other cultures. Thematic analysis of the interview data suggested that adjustment behavior was undermined by anxiety, distrust, distancing self from earthquake risk and fatalistic beliefs. The paper concludes by recommending how culture-specific disaster mitigation plans may be developed to address these factors.

The prominence of neuroscience in the public sphere has escalated in recent years, provoking questions about how the public engages with neuroscientific ideas. Commentaries on neuroscience’s role in society often present it as having revolutionary implications, fundamentally overturning established beliefs about personhood. The purpose of this article is to collate and review the extant empirical evidence on the influence of neuroscience on commonsense understandings of personhood. The article evaluates the scope of neuroscience’s presence in public consciousness and examines the empirical evidence for three frequently encountered claims about neuroscience’s societal influence: that neuroscience fosters a conception of the self that is based in biology, that neuroscience promotes conceptions of individual fate as predetermined, and that neuroscience attenuates the stigma attached to particular social categories. It concludes that many neuroscientific ideas have assimilated in ways that perpetuate rather than challenge existing modes of understanding self, others and society.

Receiving a psychiatric diagnosis in childhood or adolescence can have numerous social, emotional and practical repercussions. Among the most important of these are the implications for a young person's self-concept and social identity. To ensure diagnoses are communicated and managed in a way that optimally benefits mental health trajectories, understanding young people's first-hand experience of living with a diagnosis is paramount. This systematic review collates, evaluates and synthesises the qualitative research that has explored how psychiatric diagnosis interacts with young people's self-concept and social identity. A search of 10 electronic databases identified 3892 citations, 38 of which met inclusion criteria. The 38 studies were generally evaluated as moderate-to-high quality research. Thematic synthesis of their findings highlighted the multifaceted ways diagnosis affects young people's self-concept and social identity. Diagnosis can sometimes threaten and devalue young people's self-concept, but can also facilitate self-understanding, self-legitimation and self-enhancement. A diagnosis can lead to social alienation, invalidation and stigmatisation, yet can also promote social identification and acceptance. Further research is needed to clarify which self and identity outcomes can be expected in a given set of circumstances, and to establish how self and identity effects interact with diagnoses' other clinical, practical, social and emotional consequences.

Recent developments in the psychological and social sciences have seen a surge of attention to concepts of embodiment. The burgeoning field of embodied cognition, as well as the long‐standing tradition of phenomenological philosophy, offer valuable insights for theorising how people come to understand the world around them. However, the implications of human embodiment have been largely neglected by one of the key frameworks for conceptualising the development of social knowledge: Social Representations Theory. This article seeks to spark a dialogue between Social Representations Theory and embodiment research. It outlines the position the body occupies in the existing theoretical and empirical social representations literature, and argues that incorporating concepts gleaned from embodiment research may facilitate a more comprehensive account of the aetiology of social representations. The value of analytic attention to embodiment is illustrated with reference to a recent study of social representations of neuroscience, which suggested that embodied experience can shape the extent to which people engage with certain topics, the conditions under which they do so, and the conceptual and affective content of the ensuing representations. The article argues that expanding Social Representations Theory's methodological and conceptual toolkit, in order to illuminate the interplay between embodied experience and social communication in the development of common‐sense knowledge, promises productive directions for empirical and theoretical advancement.

Neuroscience research on sex difference is currently a controversial field, frequently accused of purveying a ‘neurosexism’ that functions to naturalise gender inequalities. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how information about neurobiological sex difference is interpreted within wider society. This paper presents a case study that tracks the journey of one high-profile study of neurobiological sex differences from its scientific publication through various layers of the public domain. A content analysis was performed to ascertain how the study was represented in five domains of communication: the original scientific article, a press release, the traditional news media, online reader comments and blog entries. Analysis suggested that scientific research on sex difference offers an opportunity to rehearse abiding cultural understandings of gender. In both scientific and popular contexts, traditional gender stereotypes were projected onto the novel scientific information, which was harnessed to demonstrate the factual truth and normative legitimacy of these beliefs. Though strains of misogyny were evident within the readers’ comments, most discussion of the study took pains to portray the sexes’ unique abilities as equal and ‘complementary’. However, this content often resembled a form of benevolent sexism, in which praise of women’s social-emotional skills compensated for their relegation from more esteemed trait-domains, such as rationality and productivity. The paper suggests that embedding these stereotype patterns in neuroscience may intensify their rhetorical potency by lending them the epistemic authority of science. It argues that the neuroscience of sex difference does not merely reflect, but can actively shape the gender norms of contemporary society.