Individuals scoring high on trait narcissism are characterised by grandiosity, selfcentredness, and lack of empathy, resulting in troubled interpersonal relationships (e.g., with acquaintances and relationship partners). Do these troubled relationships extend to their own children? In this online study of 368 parents, we examined whether grandiose narcissists are less likely to adopt optimal parenting styles (authoritative) and more likely to adopt nonoptimal parenting styles (authoritarian and permissive) and began to explore underlying mechanisms in terms of low empathy and unresponsive-caregiving. Narcissism was negatively associated with optimal parenting, and positively associated with non-optimal parenting, controlling for Big Five personality and attachment dimensions. Sequential mediation revealed that narcissists' low empathy predicts unresponsive-caregiving towards their child(ren), which in turn predicts low optimal and high non-optimal parenting practices. These effects are driven by narcissists' maladaptive traits. Exploring links between parental personality and parenting allows researchers to identify individuals at risk of poor parenting. Understanding the mechanisms that explain this relationship will assist in the development of effective interventions.
Loot boxes are a popular mechanic within many video games, but it remains unclear if some forms of loot boxes can be seen of as gambling. However, the perspectives of players are often neglected, such as whether they see them as ‘fair’ game elements and how closely they feel this aligns with gambling. In this paper, we synthesise a conceptualisation for loot boxes through players’ actual experience and explore if there are any parallels with gambling. Twenty-one participants who played video games took part in the research through either an interview or online survey. Thematic analysis suggested that six themes were core to exploring loot boxes: Random Chance Effects, Attitudes Towards Content, Implementation, Parallels with Gambling, Game Design, and The Player. The results suggested both indirect and direct parallels with gambling from the players experiences. Implications of game design and classifying loot boxes as gambling are discussed in relation to game design and risk factors of gambling and purchasing behaviour.
IntroductionGambling is increasingly recognised as an important public health issue. Problem gambling is associated with highly negative impacts on physical, psychological and social well-being, not only for those who gamble but also for those around them. There has been a rapid expansion of internet gambling and attributes such as continuous play and instant rewards, and enhanced privacy may lead to a greater likelihood of gambling-related harms. In this randomised controlled feasibility study, we are testing (1) the acceptability and feasibility of three online responsible gambling interventions targeting people with low-to-moderate risk of online problem gambling and (2) the feasibility of a future full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Methods and analysisFour-arm randomised controlled feasibility study with qualitative substudy. One-hundred and forty UK residents with low-to-moderate risk of online gambling recruited via gambling operators and social media will be randomised (1:1:1:1) to either (1) goal setting, (2) descriptive norms messages (challenge perceptions of peer behaviours), (3) injunctive norms messages (challenge perceptions of peer attitudes) and (4) control (delayed intervention). Interventions will be delivered over 6 weeks and individually tailored. Outcomes, administered online, will be measured at baseline, 7 weeks, and 3 and 6 months post randomisation (including gambling risk behaviours and cognitions, anxiety and depression, quality of life, health use and productivity). Analyses will be descriptive, focusing on feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and study procedures. Telephone/online interviews, with a subsample of approximately 30 participants, will elicit experiences of participating in the study. Prespecified progression criteria will guide decisions around whether to progress to a definitive RCT.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval obtained from Bournemouth University Research Ethics Committee (reference number 33247). Participants will be given a participant information sheet plus a ‘Key Facts’ summary and will provide informed online consent. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and public engagement events.Trial registration numberISRCTN37874344.
Introduction NHS staff face mental health problems due factors including burnout, workload, exposure to trauma and lack of support. Healthcare professionals often face barriers to seeking help and are less likely to seek out professional help for their own mental health. Following staff suicides, this study aimed to identify the perceived barriers to seeking support faced by staff members across an NHS Trust. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 29 participants, each lasting approximately 90 minutes. A further 10 informal conversations were had with staff not wanting to be formally interviewed. Results Framework analysis was used to analyse the data, resulting in four themes being identified around perceived barriers to seeking support: stigma organisational culture privacy access to support Discussion Findings indicated that staff perceived significant barriers, including mental illness-related stigma, workplace trauma, organisational culture, confidentiality concerns and access to support. Many staff members who needed to help did not reach out for support within the workplace, despite knowing they needed it. Conclusion There are perceived barriers to seeking help affect both the individual and the culture of the organisation. Larger studies are needed to assess the perceived barriers experienced by staff nationwide, with the aim of tackling these to improve staff wellbeing.
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.