Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
700,099
result(s) for
"APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY"
Sort by:
Verbal, Visual, and Intermediary Support for Child Witnesses with Autism During Investigative Interviews
Three promising investigative interview interventions were assessed in 270 children (age 6–11 years): 71 with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 199 who were typically developing (TD). Children received ‘Verbal Labels’, ‘Sketch Reinstatement of Context’ or ‘Registered Intermediary’ interviews designed to improve interview performance without decreasing accuracy. Children with ASD showed no increases in the number of correct details recalled for any of the three interview types (compared to a Best-Practice police interview), whereas TD children showed significant improvements in the Registered Intermediary and Verbal Labels interviews. Findings suggested that children with ASD can perform as well as TD children in certain types of investigative interviews, but some expected benefits (e.g., of Registered Intermediaries) were not apparent in this study.
Journal Article
How psychology works : applied psychology visually explained
Explore the human mind and examine the science behind how people think and act in a wide variety of everyday situations with this visual guide to applied psychology.
Book
Disclosure of stigmatized identities at work
This review focuses on the disclosure decisions faced by employees with concealable stigmatized identities—one of the most challenging decisions these individuals must make on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, multiple theoretical frameworks have provided a foundation for understanding the antecedents and outcomes associated with the decision to disclose or not to disclose a stigmatized identity. What is less clear, however, is the extent to which these frameworks have been empirically supported. This systematic review serves to unify the extant literature and prompt continued research related to employees with concealable stigmatized identities. Specifically, we draw upon multiple fields of study, including applied psychology, management, social psychology, and occupational health as a means to systematically synthesize the existing empirical research related to disclosure of stigmatized identities at work. In addition to advancing the scholarly knowledge of disclosure, this review also provides practical utility to organizations as they continue to create work environments that foster inclusion of all stigmatized and nonstigmatized employees.
Journal Article
Caregiving in the illness context
How does caregiving affect health and well-being and what resources help caregivers? This book provides a synthesis of psychological research on caregiver stress and brings attention to the personal, social and structural factors that affect caregivers' well-being and as well as recent behavioral interventions to enhance health.
eBook
\Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . .oh my!\: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research
Research in the field of workplace aggression has rapidly developed in the last two decades, and with this growth has come an abundance of overlapping constructs that fall under the broad rubric of workplace aggression. While researchers have conceptually distinguished these constructs, it is unclear whether this proliferation of constructs is adding appreciably to our knowledge, or whether it is constraining the questions we ask. In this paper, I consider five example constructs (i.e., abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, social undermining, and interpersonal conflict) and argue that the manner in which we have differentiated these (and other) aggression constructs does not add appreciably to our knowledge of workplace aggression. I then provide supplementary meta-analytic evidence to show that there is not a predictable pattern of outcomes from these constructs, and propose a restructuring of the manner in which we conceptualize workplace aggression.
Journal Article
What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research
We believe that journal reviewers (as well as editors and dissertation or thesis committee members) have to some extent perpetuated misconceptions about common method bias in self-report measures, including (a) that relationships between self-reported variables are necessarily and routinely upwardly biased, (b) other-reports (or other methods) are superior to self-reports, and (c) rating sources (e.g., self, other) constitute measurement methods. We argue against these misconceptions and make recommendations for what reviewers (and others) should reasonably expect from authors regarding common method bias. We believe it is reasonable to expect (a) an argument for why self-reports are appropriate, (b) construct validity evidence, (c) lack of overlap in items for different constructs, and (d) evidence that authors took proactive design steps to mitigate threats of method effects. We specifically do not recommend post hoc statistical control strategies; while some statistical strategies are promising, all have significant drawbacks and some have shown poor empirical results.
Journal Article