Lack of compliance has both short- and long-term costs and is a leading reason why parents seek mental health services for children. What parents do to help children comply with directives or rules is an important part of child socialization. The current review examines the relationship between a variety of parenting discipline behaviors (i.e., praise, positive nonverbal response, reprimand, negative nonverbal response) and child compliance. Forty-one studies of children ranging in age from 1½ to 11 years were reviewed. Reprimand and negative nonverbal responses consistently resulted in greater compliance. Praise and positive nonverbal responses resulted in mixed child outcomes. The findings are discussed based on theory and populations studied. The authors propose a mechanism that may increase children's sensitivity to both positive and negative behavioral contingencies.
Darwin's influence on the study of emotional responding has largely centered on the study of the production of facial movement patterns. In this paper, we present evidence on the importance of considering facial and vocal patterns as signals that powerfully regulate behavior in infancy and early childhood. We review a series of studies showing that facial expressions and vocal expressions alone can regulate the behavior of infants and, in the case of vocal expressions, do so at ages earlier than most researchers have acknowledged. We also review studies on the enduring effects of social signals, documenting that even 8.5-month-olds show minimal retention of the effects of social signals, some 10-month-olds can retain the effects of social signals for 25 minutes, and 14-month-old can do so for a period of one hour after only two trials of signal exposure. Social signals not only regulate behavior, they also are part and parcel of an important and relatively unstudied phenomenon called affect sharing, which is evident by 11.5 months of age. Finally, we speculate on the constitutive role of social signals, especially those linked to what Ekman has called "basic emotions" in the generation of new emotions, such as pride, shame, and guilt.
The impact of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) research on participants is unknown. A measure of impact was given to participants in an IPV study to assess systematically the impact of completing questionnaires, engaging in conflict conversations, and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and de-escalation during the conversations. Participants completed the six question, Likert-scaled, impact measure. Both male and female participants rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships. Female participants rated different segments of the study as more helpful to themselves and their relationships, while male participants did not find any segment of the study to have a different impact than other segments. KeywordsEthics; Participation Impact; Intimate Partner Violence; Couples; Observational Research Male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs in between 5.2 and 13.6% of American couples each year (Shafer, Caetano & Clark, 1998). IPV elevates victims' risk of physical injury (O'Leary, 1999;Thompson, Saltzman & Johnson, 2001;), chronic and acute physical problems (Coker et al., 2000), and myriad psychological disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety disorders and substance abuse; Magdol et al., 1998). The prevalence and impact of IPV has evoked the interest of advocates, clinicians, and researchers alike, resulting in over 5,600 published works listed in PsycINFO.An important but nearly unstudied element in this burgeoning area is the meta-topic of research participation's effect on research participants. IPV is considered a "sensitive topic" (i.e., one that might pose considerable threat to both participants and researchers; Lee, 1993). Possible harm to participants in research studies on sensitive topics is a concern of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), whose primary goal is to ensure the safety of research participants (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978). For many studies of IPV, it is difficult to determine whether the procedures confer "minimal risk" or "more than minimal risk." Minimal risk means that the chance and extent of harm that might result from research participation are not any greater than normally encountered during daily activities or during standard psychological or physical examinations or assessments (45 CFR 46.102i, 2001 (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;Medina et al., 2001), interviews (Lawson, 2003;Murphy et al., 2005), and problem solving discussions (for reviews see Heyman, 2001;Gottman, 1998).However, is minimal risk a correct assumption for these research methods? Most researchers formulate their opinions about the risk involved in conducting such research through informal means (e.g., past experience, perceived norms within an area of study, discussions with colleagues). When little is known about the impact of a study, researchers may infer minimal risk based on these informal means, whereas IRBs ...
The impact of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) research on participants is unknown. A measure of impact was given to participants in an IPV study to assess systematically the impact of completing questionnaires, engaging in conflict conversations, and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and de-escalation during the conversations. Participants completed a six-question, Likert-scaled impact measure. Both male and female participants rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships. Female participants rated different segments of the study as more helpful to themselves and their relationships, while male participants did not find any segment of the study to have a different impact than other segments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.