A new 4-group model of attachment styles in adulthood is proposed. Four prototypic attachment patterns are defined using combinations of a person's self-image (positive or negative) and image of others (positive or negative). In Study 1, an interview was developed to yield continuous and categorical ratings of the 4 attachment styles. Intercorrelations of the attachment ratings were consistent with the proposed model. Attachment ratings were validated by self-report measures of self-concept and interpersonal functioning. Each style was associated with a distinct profile of interpersonal problems, according to both self- and friend-reports. In Study 2, attachment styles within the family of origin and with peers were assessed independently. Results of Study 1 were replicated. The proposed model was shown to be applicable to representations of family relations; Ss' attachment styles with peers were correlated with family attachment ratings.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/61/2/226.pdf

Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

To satisfy the need in personality research for factorially univocal measures of each of the 5 domains that subsume most English-language terms for personality-traits, new sets of Big-Five factor markers were investigated. In studies of adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales, a transparent format was found to produce factor markers that were more univocal than the same scales administered in the traditional format. Nonetheless, even the transparent bipolar scales proved less robust as factor markers than did parallel sets of adjectives administered in unipolar format. A set of 100 unipolar terms proved to be highly robust across quite diverse samples of self and peer descriptions. These new markers were compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.

The development of markers for the big-five factor structure

Part 1. Interdisciplinary Foundations. R.C. Solomon, The Philosophy of Emotions. P.N. Stearns, History of Emotions: Issues of Change and Impact. J.E. Stets, J.H. Turner, The Sociology of Emotions. J. Panksepp, The Affective Brain and Core Consciousness: How Does Neural Activity Generate Emotional Feelings? N.H. Frijda, The Psychologist's Point of View. L.S. Greenberg, The Clinical Application of Emotion in Psychotherapy. P.N. Johnson-Laird, K. Oatley, Emotions, Music, and Literature. J. Tooby, L. Cosmides, The Evolutionary Psychology of the Emotions and Their Relationship to Internal Regulatory Variables. R. Loewenstein, G. Loewenstein, The Role of Emotion in Economic Behavior. Part 2. Biological and Neurophysiological Approaches to Emotion. J.E. LeDoux, E.A. Phelps, Emotional Networks in the Brain. J.T. Larsen, G.G. Berntson, K.M. Poehlmann, T.A. Ito, J.T. Cacioppo, The Psychophysiology of Emotion. J. Bachorowski, M.J. Owren, Vocal Expressions of Emotion. D. Matsumoto, D. Keltner, M.N. Shiota, M. O'Sullivan, M. Frank, Facial Expressions of Emotion. J.M. Haviland-Jones, P.J. Wilson, A "Nose" for Emotion: Emotional Information and Challenges in Odors and Semiochemicals. T.D. Wager, L. Feldman Barrett, E. Bliss-Moreau, K. Lindquist, S. Duncan, H. Kober, J. Joseph, M. Davidson, J. Mize, The Neuroimaging of Emotion. A.D. Craig, Interoception and Emotion: A Neuroanatomical Perspective. Part 3. Developmental Changes. L.A. Camras, S.S. Fatani, The Development of Facial Expressions: Current Perspectives on Infant Emotions. M. Lewis, The Emergence of Human Emotions. P.L. Harris, Children's Understanding of Emotion. C. Saarni, The Interface of Emotional Development with Social Context. S.C. Widen, J.A. Russell, Young Children's Understanding of Others' Emotions. A.S. Walker-Andrews, Intermodal Emotional Processes in Infancy. C. Magai, Long-Lived Emotions: A Lifecourse Perspective on Emotional Development. Part 4. Social Perspectives. L.R. Brody, J.A. Hall, Gender and Emotion in Context. R.A. Shweder, J. Haidt, R. Horton, C. Joseph, The Cultural Psychology of the Emotions: Ancient and Renewed. E.R. Smith, D.M. Mackie, Intergroup Emotions. M.L. Hoffman, Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. A.H. Fischer, A.S.R. Manstead, Social Functions of Emotion. Part 5. Personality Issues. R.E. Lucas, E. Diener, Subjective Well-Being. J.E. Bates, J.A. Goodnight, J.E. Fite, Temperament and Emotion. J.J. Gross, Emotion Regulation. K.A. Lindquist, L. Feldman Barrett, Emotional Complexity. Part 6. Cognitive Factors. P. Salovey, B.T. Detweiler-Bedell, J.B. Detweiler-Bedell, J.D. Mayer, Emotional Intelligence. A.M. Isen, Some Ways in which Positive Affect Influences Decision Making and Problem Solving. N.L. Stein, M.W. Hernandez, T. Trabasso, Advances in Modeling Emotion and Thought: The Importance of Development, On-Line and Multilevel Analyses. P.M. Niedenthal, Emotion Concepts. E.A. Kensinger, D.L. Schacter, Memory and Emotion. M. Minsky, A Framework for Representing Emotional States. G.L. Clore, A. Ortony, Appraisal Theories: How Cognition Shapes Affect into Emotion. Part 7. Health and Emotions. M.A. Diefenbach, S.M. Miller, M. Porter, E. Peters, M. Stefanek, H. Leventhal, Emotions and Health Behavior: A Self-Regulation Perspective. M.E. Kemeny, A. Shestyuk, Emotions, the Neuroendocrine and Immune Systems, and Health. N.S. Consedine, Emotions and Health. A.M. Kring, Emotion Disturbances as Transdiagnostic Processes in Psychopathology. Part 8. Select Emotions. A. Ohman, Fear and Anxiety: Overlaps and Dissociations. E.A. Lemerise, K.A. Dodge, The Development of Anger and Hostile Interactions. M. Lewis, Self-Conscious Emotions: Embarrassment, Pride, Shame, and Guilt. P. Rozin, J. Haidt, C.R. McCauley, Disgust. B.L. Fredrickson, M.A. Cohn, Positive Emotions. G.A. Bonanno, L. Goorin, K.G. Coifman, Sadness and Grief.

Handbook of Emotions

The measurement of meaning

The purpose of this article is to integrate previous theory and research addressing interpersonal complementarity, a construct that is central to refined and extended research and clinical applications of interpersonal theory. The article first describes the 1982 Interpersonal Circle, which the author constructed as a comprehensive taxonomy of the domain of two-dimensional interpersonal behavior. The 1982 Circle integrates and expands the content of four major adult interpersonal measures (LaForge & Suczek's Interpersonal Check List, Wiggins's Interpersonal Adjective Scales, Lorr & McNair's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory, and Kiesler et al.'s Impact Message Inventory) to provide a circle taxonomy consisting of 16 segments, 128 subclasses, 2 levels, and 350 bipolar items. Second, the article reviews previous conceptions of interpersonal complementarity and, using the 1982 Circle as a theoretical and operational guide, derives 11 propositions of complementarity as they apply in personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy.

The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions

Some myths of psychotherapy research and the search for a paradigm.

Partial table of contents: PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. Overt Interpersonal Behavior and the Interpersonal Circle. Interpersonal Behavior: Moderating Factors and Other Issues. Covert Components of Interpersonal Behavior. Interpersonal Behavior and Our Bids for Complementarity. Measurement of the Covert Complementary Response: The Impact Message Inventory. Maladjusted Interpersonal Behavior: General Principles and Formulations for Specific DSM Disorders. DIAGNOSIS, PSYCHOTHERAPY, AND SUPERVISION. Interpersonal Assessment and Diagnosis. The Relationship in Psychotherapy: An Interpersonal Communication Analysis. Interpersonal Communication Interventions: Interpersonal Complementary Principles. Conclusion. References. Indexes.

Donald J. Kiesler

Papers

The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions

Some myths of psychotherapy research and the search for a paradigm.

Contemporary Interpersonal Theory and Research: Personality, Psychopathology, and Psychotherapy

Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions.

The experiencing scales.