Why a group-level analysis is essential for effective public policy: The case for a g-frame.

Societal problems are not solved by individualistic interventions, but nor are systemic approaches optimal given their neglect of the social psychology underpinning group dynamics. This impasse can be addressed through a group-level analysis (a "g-frame") that social identity theorizing affords. Using a g-frame can make policy interventions more adaptive, inclusive, and engaging.

A multiple needs framework for climate change anxiety interventions.

Climate change anxiety is a growing problem for individual well-being the world over. However, psychological interventions to address climate change anxiety may have unintended effects on outcomes other than individual well-being, such as group cohesion and pro-environmental behavior. In order to address these complexities, we outline a multiple needs framework of climate change anxiety interventions, which can be used to analyze interventions in terms of their effects on individual, social, and environmental outcomes. We use this framework to contextualize a systematic review of the literature detailing the effects of climate change anxiety interventions. This analysis identifies interventions centered around problem-focused action, emotion management, and enhancing social connections as those which have beneficial effects on the widest range of outcomes. It also identifies interventions that may have detrimental effects on one or more outcomes. We identify gaps where more research is required, including research that assesses the effects of climate change anxiety interventions on individual, social, and environmental outcomes in concert. An interactive website summarizes these insights and presents the results of the systematic review in a way that is, accessible to a range of stakeholders. The multiple needs framework provides a way to conceptualize the effectiveness of climate change anxiety interventions beyond their impact on individual well-being, contributing to a more holistic understanding of the effects of this global phenomenon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A Social-Identity Theory of Information-Access Regulation (SITIAR): Understanding the Psychology of Sharing and Withholding.

Secrecy, privacy, confidentiality, concealment, disclosure, and gossip all involve sharing and withholding access to information. However, existing theories do not account for the fundamental similarity between these concepts. Accordingly, it is unclear when sharing and withholding access to information will have positive or negative effects and why these effects might occur. We argue that these problems can be addressed by conceptualizing these phenomena more broadly as different kinds of information-access regulation. Furthermore, we outline a social-identity theory of information-access regulation (SITIAR) that proposes that information-access regulation shapes shared social identity, explaining why people who have access to information feel a sense of togetherness with others who have the same access and a sense of separation from those who do not. This theoretical framework unifies diverse findings across disparate lines of research and generates a number of novel predictions about how information-access regulation affects individuals and groups.

When trust goes wrong: A social identity model of risk taking.

Risk taking is typically viewed through a lens of individual deficits (e.g., impulsivity) or normative influence (e.g., peer pressure). An unexplored possibility is that shared group membership, and the trust that flows from it, may play a role in reducing risk perceptions and promoting risky behavior. We propose and test a Social Identity Model of Risk Taking in eight studies (total N = 4,708) that use multiple methods including minimal group paradigms, correlational, longitudinal, and experimental designs to investigate the effect of shared social identity across diverse risk contexts. Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence for the basic premise of the model, showing that ingroup members were perceived as posing lower risk and inspired greater risk taking behavior than outgroup members. Study 3 found that social identification was a moderator, such that effect of shared group membership was strongest among high identifiers. Studies 4 and 5 among festival attendees showed correlational and longitudinal evidence for the model and further that risk-taking was mediated by trust, not disgust. Study 6 manipulated the mediator and found that untrustworthy faces were trusted more and perceived as less risky when they were ingroup compared with outgroup members. Studies 7 and 8 identified integrity as the subcomponent of trust that consistently promotes greater risk taking in the presence of ingroup members. The findings reveal that a potent source of risk discounting is the group memberships we share with others. Ironically, this means the people we trust the most may sometimes pose the greatest risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of restraint and seclusion as interventions for the short-term management of violence in adult psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments.

AIMS: The aim of this review was to assess whether restraint and seclusion are safe and effective interventions for the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour. Staff and service user perspectives on the use of these interventions were also considered. The review was undertaken as part of the development process for a national guideline on the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour in adult psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments in the United Kingdom. METHOD: An exhaustive literature search was undertaken. Systematic reviews, before and after studies, as well as qualitative studies were included. Searches were run from 1985 to 2002. FINDINGS: Thirty-six eligible studies were identified. However, none were randomised controlled trials. Most of the included studies had many limitations, such as small sample sizes, confounders not adequately accounted for, potential selection bias, poorly reported results, and lack of clarity as to whether mechanical restraints were used. This review must therefore be viewed as a mapping exercise, which illustrates the range and quality of studies that have been undertaken in this area to date. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether seclusion and restraint are safe and/or effective interventions for the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour in adult psychiatric inpatient settings. These interventions should therefore be used with caution and only as a last resort once other methods of calming a situation and/or service user have failed.

Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although mental incapacity is becoming increasingly important in clinical practice, little information is available on its frequency in medical inpatients. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of mental incapacity in acutely admitted medical inpatients; to determine the frequency that medical teams recognised patients who did not have mental capacity; and to identify factors associated with mental incapacity. METHODS: Over an 18-month period, we recruited 302 consecutive acute medical inpatients. Participants were assessed with the MacArthur competence tool for treatment and by clinical interview. Cognitive impairment was measured by the mini-mental state examination. FINDINGS: 72 (24%) patients were severely cognitively impaired, unconscious, or unable to express a choice and were automatically assigned to the incapacity group. 71 (24%) refused to participate or could not speak English. Thus, 159 patients were interviewed. Of these, 31% (95% CI 24-38) were judged not to have mental capacity. For the total sample (n=302), we estimated that at least 40% did not have mental capacity. Clinical teams rarely identified patients who did not have mental capacity: of 50 patients interviewed, 12 (24%) were rated as lacking capacity. Factors associated with mental incapacity were increasing age and cognitive impairment. INTERPRETATION: Mental incapacity is common in acutely ill medical inpatients, and clinicians tend not to recognise it. Screening methods for cognitive impairment could be useful in detecting those with doubtful capacity to consent.