Creative thinking in Tourette's syndrome: A comparative study of patients and healthy controls.

INTRODUCTION: Tourette's syndrome is a neurological disorder characterized by tics, that may interfere with patients' everyday life. Research suggested that creative thinking (namely, divergent and convergent thinking) could help patients cope with their symptoms, and therefore it can be a resource in non-pharmacological interventions. The present study aimed at investigating (i) possible differences in creative thinking between Tourette's syndrome patients and healthy controls and (ii) whether creative thinking can support patients in coping with their symptomatology. METHODS: A group of 25 Tourette's syndrome patients and 25 matched healthy controls underwent an assessment of creative thinking, fluid intelligence, and depressive symptoms. Creative thinking was compared between patients and healthy controls after controlling for fluid intelligence and depressive symptoms. Moreover, the moderating role of divergent and convergent thinking on the subjective impact of tics was tested in a group of 30 patients. RESULTS: Tourette's syndrome patients outperformed healthy controls in convergent thinking. Moreover, divergent thinking was found as a significant moderator of the relationship between tics severity and the subjective impact in Tourette's syndrome patients. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted the specific impact of convergent and divergent thinking on Tourette's syndrome patients. Considering the supportive role of creative thinking in Tourette's syndrome, our results confirm that higher levels of divergent thinking may reduce the tic-related discomfort. These findings suggest the potential positive implications of creative thinking in non-pharmacological interventions for Tourette's syndrome.

Black-and-white thinking and conspiracy beliefs prevent parents from vaccinating their children against COVID-19.

Understanding predictors of parents' willingness to vaccinate their children appears fundamental to promote vaccine acceptability, especially in a pandemic scenario. The present study aimed to investigate the role of conspiracy beliefs and absolutist thinking in parental attitude toward COVID-19 vaccine, and the predictive role of parents' individual differences on decisions against children's vaccination. An online survey was administered to 415 parents of children aged 5-11, at the very beginning of the vaccination targeting this population in Italy. Results showed that absolutism predicted the tendency to believe in conspiracies, associated with a negative attitude toward the COVID-19 vaccine administration to children. Moreover, mothers were less willing to vaccinate children and parents of children aged 5-7 were more hesitant, or even against vaccination, than parents of older children. Finally, the worry about consequences of COVID-19 infection on children's health facilitated vaccine adherence. These findings contribute to deepening mechanisms regarding the vaccine acceptability.

Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine's Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences.

The COVID-19 vaccine appears to be a crucial requirement to fight the pandemic. However, a part of the population possesses negative attitudes towards the vaccine. The spread of conspiracy theories and contradictory information about the pandemic have altered the population's perception of risk. The risk-perception of the vaccine's side effects may be affected by individual differences. The complex relationship between risk-perception and individual differences is relevant when people have to make decisions based on ambiguous and constantly changing information, as in the early phases of the Italian vaccination campaign. The present study aimed at measuring the effect of individual differences in risk-perception associated with the COVID-19 vaccine's side effects in a context characterized by information ambiguity. An online survey was conducted to classify a sample of Italian pro-vaccine people into cognitive/behavioral style groups. Furthermore, changes in vaccine risk-perception after inconsistent communications regarding the vaccine's side effects were compared between groups. The results showed that "analytical" individuals did not change their perception regarding the probability of vaccine side effects but changed their perception regarding the severity of side effects; "open" and "polarized" individuals neither changed their perception regarding the probability nor of the severity of side effects, showing a different kind of information processing, which could interfere with an informed decision-making process.