Childhood Neglect and Loneliness: The Unique Roles of Parental Figure and Child Sex.

There is a well-supported link between experiences of childhood neglect and levels of loneliness in adulthood, with emotional neglect from caregivers being predictive of loneliness. However, current research has yet to explore additional, sex-linked factors that influence this relationship. This study investigates the impact of different neglect types on loneliness, with a focus on the parental figure involved and the child's sex. It was hypothesized that men who experienced emotional neglect from their fathers would score higher in loneliness compared to other parent-child combinations. The findings showed no significant differences in father-son relationships within the context of emotional neglect. However, there was a significant difference in father-son relationships in the context of supervision neglect and loneliness outcomes, relative to all other parent combinations. Consistent with existing research, emotional neglect emerged as the strongest predictor of loneliness. Additionally, sex differences were observed, with women experiencing greater levels of loneliness stemming from neglect compared to men. These findings help address the knowledge gap present in childhood neglect research, with the goal of understanding the long-term consequences of adverse childhood experiences.

Examining the Connectorship Scale: Factor Structure and Correlations With Self-Efficacy and Extraversion.

The Connectorship Scale was designed to assess how leaders connect with their followers and is described to measure eight dimensions: social interactivity, dependability, positive communication, presenting oneself, storytelling ability, belief in networking, tangible introduction, and belief in the importance of online networking. This study explores the scale properties and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the Connectorship Scale and examines how the scale scores correlate with self-efficacy and extraversion based on responses from 454 (52% women) adult business students. The internal consistency estimates suggested that one of the subscales, positive communication, was unreliable; we therefore excluded that subscale from further analyses. A CFA of the seven-factor model suggested good fit once two pairs of error terms were allowed to correlate. Self-efficacy and all facets of extraversion positively correlated with six of the seven connectorship subscales, the exception being the tangible introduction scale. The results raise concern about the positive communication subscale from the Connectorship Scale but do support the use of the other seven subscales for research about engaged and effective leadership.

A multi-study investigation assessing the potential redundancy among the Dark Tetrad using a narrowband trait approach.

We investigated the putative redundancy of the Dark Tetrad (specifically, Machiavellianism-psychopathy and sadism-psychopathy) through an examination of the differences between correlations with self-reported narrowband personality traits. In addition to measures of the Dark Tetrad, participants in four studies completed measures of various narrowband traits assessing general personality, aggression, impulsivity, Mimicry Deception Theory, and Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Results generally supported empirical distinctions between Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and between sadism and psychopathy. Machiavellianism significantly differed from psychopathy across correlations for nine of 10 traits (Study 1), 8 of 25 facets (Study 2), aggression (Study 3), 12 of 25 facets (Study 3), four of five facets (Study 4), impulsivity (Study 4), and five of six facets (Study 4). Sadism significantly differed from psychopathy across correlations with five of 10 traits (Study 1), eight of 25 facets (Study 2), reactive aggression (Study 3), 10 of 25 facets (Study 3), three of six facets (Study 4), impulsivity (Study 4), and three of six facets (Study 4). Our findings challenge the claims that Machiavellianism and psychopathy, as well as sadism and psychopathy, as currently measured, are redundant.

Do neuroticism and efficacy beliefs moderate the relationship between climate change worry and mental wellbeing?

BACKGROUND: Research on the nature and prevalence of phenomena like climate anxiety (or eco-anxiety) is increasing rapidly but there is little understanding of the conditions under which climate change worry becomes more or less likely to significantly impact mental wellbeing. Here, we considered two plausible moderators of the relationship between climate change worry and mental wellbeing: neuroticism and efficacy beliefs. METHODS: Analysis was conducted with survey data gathered in six European countries in autumn 2019. Participants were recruited from universities in the participating countries using opportunity sampling. RESULTS: We found that climate change worry is negatively related to mental wellbeing at any level of perceived efficacy. In contrast, climate change worry is only significantly related to mental wellbeing at low and average levels of neuroticism. High neuroticism appears to have a masking, rather than amplifying, role in the relationship between climate change worry and mental wellbeing. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design of the study precludes verification of causal relationships among variables. The brief measure of neuroticism employed also did not allow for nuanced analysis of how different facets of neuroticism contribute to the observed interaction with climate change worry. Findings cannot be indiscriminately generalised to less privileged groups facing the worst impacts of the climate crisis. CONCLUSION: Our findings lend to a view that harmful impacts of climate change worry on mental wellbeing cannot simply be ascribed to dispositional traits like neuroticism. We advocate for interventions that tackle negative climate-related emotions as unique psychological stressors.