Eating vegan due to cancer: A different social experience than other vegan dieters?

Many diagnosed with cancer change their diet in response to the diagnosis, with a vegan diet being a common choice. There may be health benefits to this, but research has demonstrated that following a vegan diet can have negative social ramifications. These social ramifications seem to be experienced to a lesser extent by those who following a vegan diet for health versus moral reasons, but this is a heterogeneous group; people may choose the diet for a myriad of different health reasons. In two pre-reregistered studies, we examined the social experience of those who adopt a vegan diet following a cancer diagnosis. Study 1, an experimental study, demonstrated that omnivores responded more positively to a friend who was vegan for cancer reasons than animal or general health reasons, which was explained by increased empathy. In Study 2, a cross-sectional survey study, those who adopted a vegan diet due to cancer reported (overall) less negative social experiences than those following a vegan diet more generally. These participants reported that cancer represented a greater social challenge than their diet. Taken together, these findings suggest that "vegan due to cancer" is a unique social identity and a unique social experience, relative to that of those motivated by other reasons, including general health reasons.

Adaptation and validation of a patient-reported compassion measure in the Spanish population: The Spanish version of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQesp).

International practice guidelines and policies recognize compassion as a fundamental dimension of quality care. A key element in enhancing compassion in healthcare settings is having reliable patient-reported experience measures. In the Spanish context, there is a need for a valid Spanish patient-reported compassion measure for use in both research and clinical practice. The Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ) represents the gold standard for patient-reported compassion measures in English-speaking settings. The primary aim of this study is to culturally adapt and validate the SCQ in a Spanish population. A Spanish version of the SCQ (SCQesp) was used to collect data from 303 Spanish patients (in two contexts: hospitalized and medical visit). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a one-factor solution in the 15-item (SCQesp) and five-item (SCQesp-SF) short form version. The SCQesp showed excellent values of reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.98; composite variance = 0.98 (0.905-0.854); and stratified variance = 0.78. The SCQesp-SF showed similar values of reliability. The SCQesp has excellent psychometric properties, making it a valid and reliable measure for assessing compassion in healthcare research and clinical care. This scientifically rigorous and psychometrically robust compassion measure in Spanish could allow healthcare providers, researchers, and leaders to routinely assess compassion.

Tensions within and between vegans and vegetarians: Meat-free motivations matter.

Under the superordinate umbrella of "veg*n", vegans and vegetarians share a disavowal of meat consumption but differ regarding the use of animal products and by-products. Furthermore, within each subgroup there exist multiple motivations (or reasons) for diet choice, some with more moral overtones than others. Despite being on the same "team" relative to the meat-eating majority, there is tremendous potential for expressions of subgroup distinctiveness and tension. In an online sample of veg*ns, we asked participants to report on views of and experiences with veg*ns, including separately evaluating vegans and vegetarians for animal, environmental, health, or religious reasons (i.e., 8 groups). Overall vegan (vs. vegetarian) participants expressed more subgroup bias, with vegans consistently preferred over vegetarians. Both vegans and vegetarians preferred veg*ns with "ethical" motivations (animal or environmental), and reported negative experiences with their subgroup outgroups (i.e., vegetarians and vegans, respectively). Problematically, in terms of group cohesion, vegetarians reported elevated anxiety and vigilance in their interactions with animal vegans especially. Overall the results suggest that, despite sharing a superordinate category and goal, and despite recent calls for veg*nism to become a more inclusive and wider tent, substantial tensions exist that can disrupt group cohesion and productivity.

Do American States with more religious or conservative populations search more for sexual content on google?

In America, religiosity and conservatism are generally associated with opposition to non-traditional sexual behavior, but prominent political scandals and recent research suggest a paradoxical private attraction to sexual content on the political and religious right. We examined associations between state-level religiosity/conservatism and anonymized interest in searching for sexual content online using Google Trends (which calculates within-state search volumes for search terms). Across two separate years, and controlling for demographic variables, we observed moderate-to-large positive associations between: (1) greater proportions of state-level religiosity and general web searching for sexual content and (2) greater proportions of state-level conservatism and image-specific searching for sex. These findings were interpreted in terms of the paradoxical hypothesis that a greater preponderance of right-leaning ideologies is associated with greater preoccupation with sexual content in private internet activity. Alternative explanations (e.g., that opposition to non-traditional sex in right-leaning states leads liberals to rely on private internet sexual activity) are discussed, as are limitations to inference posed by aggregate data more generally.

Weighty words: exploring terminology about weight among samples of physicians, obesity specialists, and the general public.

BACKGROUND: The words used to refer to weight and individuals with large bodies can be used to reinforce weight stigma. Given that most previous research has examined preferred terminology within homogenous groups, this research sought to examine terminology preferences across populations. METHODS: This paper reports on data gathered with the general public, family physicians, and obesity researchers/practitioners. Participants were asked about the words they commonly: (1) used to refer to people with large bodies (general public); (2) heard in their professional contexts (physicians and obesity specialists); and (3) perceived to be the most socially or professionally acceptable (all samples). RESULTS: Similarities and differences were evident between samples, especially related to weight-related clinical terms, the word fat, and behavioral stereotypes. CONCLUSION: The results provide some clarity into the differences between populations and highlight the need to incorporate use of strategies that may move beyond person-first language to humanize research and clinical practice with people with large bodies.

What is the Most Valid and Reliable Compassion Measure in Healthcare? An Updated Comprehensive and Critical Review.

Our previous review of compassion measures in healthcare between 1985 and 2016 concluded that no available measure assessed compassion in healthcare in a comprehensive or methodologically rigorous fashion. The present study provided a comparative review of the design and psychometric properties of recently updated or newly published compassion measures. The search strategy of our previous review was replicated. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched to identify studies that reported information on instruments that measure compassion or compassionate care in clinicians, physicians, nurses, healthcare students, and patients. Textual qualitative descriptions of included studies were prepared. Instruments were evaluated using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. Measures that underwent additional testing since our last review included the Compassion Competence Scale (CCS), the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool (CCAT)©, and the Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale (SCCCS)™. New compassion measures included the Sussex-Oxford Compassion for Others Scale (SOCS-O), a self-report measure of compassion for others; the Bolton Compassion Strengths Indicators (BSCI), a self-report measure of the characteristics (strengths) associated with a compassionate nurse; a five-item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion (TMPACC); and the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ was the only measure that adhered to measure development guidelines, established initial construct validity by first defining the concept of interest, and included the patient perspective across all stages of development. The SCQ had the highest EMPRO overall score at 58.1, almost 9 points higher than any other compassion measure, and achieved perfect EMPRO subscale scores for internal consistency, reliability, validity, and respondent burden, which were up to 43 points higher than any other compassion measure. These findings establish the SCQ as the 'gold standard' compassion measure, providing an empirical basis for evaluations of compassion in routine care.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Development and validation of a patient-reported measure of compassion in healthcare: the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ).

OBJECTIVES: Compassion is a key indicator of quality care that is reportedly eroding from patients' care experience. While the need to assess compassion is recognised, valid and reliable measures are lacking. This study developed and validated a clinically informed, psychometrically rigorous, patient-reported compassion measure. DESIGN: Data were collected from participants living with life-limiting illnesses over two study phases across four care settings (acute care, hospice, long term care (LTC) and homecare). In phase 1, data were analysed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with the final items analysed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in phase 2. The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale (SCCCS), the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r) and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPEQ) were also administered in phase 2 to assess convergent and divergent validity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 633 participants were recruited over two study phases. In the EFA phase, a 54-item version of the measure was administered to 303 participants, with 330 participants being administered the final 15-item measure in the CFA phase. RESULTS: Both EFA and CFA confirmed compassion as a single factor construct with factor loadings for the 15-item measure ranging from 0.76 to 0.86, with excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.74-0.89) and excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha of 0.96). The measure was positively correlated with the SCCCS (r=0.75, p<0.001) and PPEQ (r=0.60, p<0.001). Participants reporting higher experiences of compassion had significantly greater well-being and lower depression on the ESAS-r. Patients in acute care and hospice reported significantly greater experiences of compassion than LTC residents. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong initial psychometric evidence for the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ) as a valid and reliable patient-reported compassion measure. The SCQ provides healthcare providers, settings and administrators the means to routinely measure patients experiences of compassion, while providing researchers a robust measure to conduct high-quality research.

You don't want kids?!: Exploring evaluations of those without children.

We examined perceptions of those without children in a pre-registered study. Women who made a conscious decision not to have children (i.e., childfree) and women without children for unknown reasons were evaluated more negatively than mothers and those unable to have children (i.e., childless). Few differences were observed in evaluations of male targets as a function of parental status. Although we expected gender differences whereby childfree women would be evaluated more negatively than childfree men, this was not observed. Evaluations also did not vary as a function of perceiver gender. Those higher in social dominance orientation had more negative evaluations of childfree and childless women operating through ascription to traditional gender roles. The same pattern existed for male targets but was no longer supported when statistically controlling for singlism.

Exploring potential prejudice toward older adult mobility device users.

Many older adults require assistive technology to maintain mobility (e.g., canes, walkers, wheelchairs, or scooters), but concerns about experiencing prejudice because of mobility devices can deter use. We explore this potential prejudice in a sample recruited through online crowdsourcing. Overall, prejudice toward older adult mobility device users was not observed. Older adult mobility device users were evaluated more positively than common prejudice target groups. However, heightened prejudice toward older adult mobility device users was observed among those higher in authoritarianism or social dominance orientation. This was explained by perceptions that older adult mobility device users are a greater threat to resources (e.g., health care spending, time, attention) among those higher in these qualities. This pattern was present at all ages assessed but was stronger for those who were younger versus older. Relationships between ideology and heightened threat from older adult mobility device users were not present for those older than 60 years of age. Our results demonstrate that concerns about this prejudice are not completely unwarranted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations.

The outcomes of social interactions among members of different groups (e.g., racial groups, political groups, sexual orientation groups) have long been of interest to psychologists. Two related literatures on the topic have emerged-the intergroup interaction literature and the intergroup contact literature-in which divergent conclusions have been reported. Intergroup interaction is typically found to have negative effects tied to intergroup bias, producing heightened stress, intergroup anxiety, or outgroup avoidance, whereas intergroup contact is typically found to have positive effects tied to intergroup bias, predicting lower intergroup anxiety and lower prejudice. We examine these paradoxical findings, proposing that researchers contributing to the two literatures are examining different levels of the same phenomenon and that methodological differences can account for the divide between the literatures. Further, we introduce a mathematical model by which the findings of the two literatures can be reconciled. We believe that adopting this model will streamline thinking in the field and will generate integrative new research in which investigators examine how a person's experiences with diversity unfold.

Is homophobia associated with an implicit same-sex attraction?

Some theorists propose that homophobia stems from underlying same-sex attraction. A few studies have tested this hypothesis, yet without a clear measure of implicit sexual attraction, producing mixed results. For the first time, we test this attraction-based account of homophobia among both men and women using an implicit measure of sexual attraction. No evidence of an attraction-based account of homophobia emerged. Instead, implicit same-sex attraction was related to positive evaluations of gay men and lesbians among female participants. Even in targeted analyses examining the relation between implicit same-sex attraction and homosexual evaluations among only those theoretically most likely to demonstrate an attraction-based homophobic effect, implicit same-sex attraction was not associated with evaluations of homosexuals or was associated with more positive evaluations of homosexuals. In addition, explicit same-sex attraction was related to positive evaluations of gay men and lesbians for male participants. These results are more in keeping with the attitude-similarity effect (i.e., people like, rather than dislike, similar others).

A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives.

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (nonintergroup) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered.