Attributions and expectations for the behavior of persons with brain injury: the effect of visibility of injury.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether visible markers of brain injury shape people's causal attributions for the behaviors of the person with the injury and their expectations that those behaviors will persist for 5 years. DESIGN: Experimental scenarios described an adolescent boy with a brain injury (pictured either with or without a head scar) who showed 4 behavior changes relating to sleep, anger, self-confidence, and motivation. SETTING: Victoria University of Wellington. PARTICIPANTS: University student volunteers (N = 249). MEASURES: For each behavior, ratings of attributions to either the brain injury or to adolescence and estimates that the behaviors would persist for 5 years. RESULTS: Attributions to brain injury correlated with expectations that the behaviors would persist. Participants attributed the behaviors more to the brain injury than to adolescence in the scar condition but not in the no-scar condition. CONCLUSIONS: Visible markers of brain injury such as scars are spurious markers of severity that shape attributions for actions of persons with the injury and expectations that problematic behaviors will persist. The results inform strategies for correcting misunderstandings about brain injury and enhancing rehabilitation.

Rational design of a topical androgen receptor antagonist for the suppression of sebum production with properties suitable for follicular delivery.

A novel nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist, (R)-4-(1-benzyl-4,4-dimethyl-2-oxopyrrolidin-3-yloxy)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzonitrile (1), for the topical control of sebum production is reported. This compound, which is potent, selective, and efficacious in the clinically validated golden Syrian hamster ear animal model, was designed to be delivered to the pilosebaceous unit, the site of action, preferentially by the follicular route.

Attributions for behaviours of persons with brain injury: the role of perceived severity and time since injury.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The experiment determined first whether visible markers of brain injury shape judgements of severity of injury and time since injury; and secondly whether these two judgements predict attributions for undesirable actions performed by an adolescent with brain-injury. RESEARCH DESIGN: Scenarios presented a photograph of an adolescent, in one condition with a head scar and in a second condition with no scar. The adolescent was described as having suffered a brain injury and showing four behaviour changes, concerning sleep, anger, self-confidence and motivation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: For each behaviour, students (n = 101) rated attributions to the brain injury and adolescence and estimated severity of injury and time since injury. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: With no scar, participants attributed the behaviours to adolescence more than brain injury, whereas with the scar they invoked both causes equally. With the scar they rated severity higher and time since injury shorter; severity predicted participants' attributions for the behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Visible markers of injury such as scars are spurious indicators of severity but they shape judgements of severity and attributions for actions of persons with brain injury. These results inform more accurate diagnosis and treatment for actions resulting from brain injury.

Visible markers of brain injury influence attributions for adolescents' behaviour.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Experiments investigated whether attributions for a brain-injured person's behaviours were affected by markers of injury. People misattribute behaviours that result from brain injury to personality or life stages (e.g. adolescence), particularly when there are no visible markers of the injury. RESEARCH DESIGN: Scenarios presented a photograph of an adolescent boy, who either wore or did not wear a head bandage. The boy was described as suffering a brain injury and showing four changes in his behaviour, relating to sleep, anger, self-confidence and motivation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: For each behaviour, students (n=100) rated attributions to the brain injury and adolescence. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: When there was no bandage, participants attributed the behaviours to adolescence more than brain injury, whereas with the head bandage they invoked both causes equally. CONCLUSIONS: When actions resulting from brain injury are attributed to causes other than the injury, this misattribution hinders accurate diagnosis and treatment. Data on effects of injury and individual levels of pre-morbid behaviours lead to accurate attributions.