Conception and Development of the Warmth/Affection Coding System (WACS): A Novel Hybrid Behavioral Observational Tool for Assessing Parent-to-Child Warmth.

A vast body of research and theory underscores the importance of parental warmth/affection (hereby 'warmth' and 'warmth/affection' are used interchangeably) as a distinct relational process that is fundamental to core developmental processes including parent-child attachment, socialization, emotion recognition and responsivity, and empathic development. The increasing focus on parental warmth as a viable transdiagnostic and specific treatment target for Callous-Unemotional (CU) traits highlights the critical need for a reliable and valid tool for measuring this construct within clinical contexts. However, existing assessment methods have limitations in their ecological validity, clinical utility, and the comprehensiveness of their coverage of core warmth subcomponents. In response to this clinical and research need, the observational Warmth/Affection Coding System (WACS) was developed to comprehensively measure parent-to-child warmth/affection. This paper chronicles the conception and development of the WACS, which adopts a hybrid approach of utilizing both microsocial and macro-observational coding methods to capture key verbal and non-verbal subcomponents of warmth that are currently underrepresented or poorly captured by existing assessment tools. Recommendations for implementation and future directions are also discussed.

Choice and the nocebo effect: If a little is good, more is better?

OBJECTIVE: Lack of choice over treatment may increase the nocebo effect, whereby unpleasant side effects can be triggered by the treatment context, beyond any inherent physiological effects of the treatment itself. Excessive choice may also increase the nocebo effect. The current studies tested these possibilities. METHOD: Participants took part in studies ostensibly investigating the influence of beta-blockers (Study 1, n = 71) and benzodiazepines (Study 2, n = 120) on anxiety. All treatments were placebos. In Study 1, participants were randomly allocated to three groups: no-treatment control, no-choice, and choice between two treatments. In Study 2, a ten-choice group was added. Participants were warned about possible treatment side effects. These warned symptoms were assessed, and scores summed. Nocebo effects were evidenced by significantly higher warned symptoms scores in any placebo-treated group compared to the control group. RESULTS: In both studies, the no-choice groups experienced a nocebo effect (S1: p = .003, ηp2= 0.121; S2: p = .022, ηp2= 0.045). A significant nocebo effect was not present in groups who chose between two treatments (S1: p = .424, ηp2= 0.009; S2: p = .49, ηp2= 0.004). In Study 2, choosing between ten treatments resulted in a nocebo effect (p = .006, ηp2= 0.065). CONCLUSION: Lack of choice resulted in the development of nocebo effects, while having a limited choice between two placebos did not generate significant nocebo effects. However, a larger choice between ten placebos generated a nocebo effect of similar magnitude to lack of choice. Facilitating (some) choice in medical care may reduce the development of nocebo effects, but more extensive choice options may not offer similar benefits.