Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
PIK PublicationsNot a member yet
55339 research outputs found
Sort by
Corruption and Iron Fist Politics in Brazil
No full textIn the past decades, investigations against corruption in Latin America and beyond have been followed by shocking electoral outcomes including a substantial increase in the number of candidates from the security sector (police and military) and religious organizations. This project fields two experiments to uncover how voters understand the relationship between systemic corruption and such moralist or "law and order" candidates. We expect for 1) "Law and order" candidates to be rated as better able to combat corruption; 2) "Law and order" candidates running with explicitly anti-corruption slogans to be rated more favorably; 3) Voters exposed to conditions of systemic corruption to express more punitive criminal justice attitudes; and 4) Voters exposed to conditions of systemic corruption to express less satisfaction with democrac
Emotional Reactivity and Bipolar Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
No full textThe aim of this study is to use meta-analytic techniques to estimate effect sizes associated with bipolar disorders (BD) and bipolar risk on emotional reactivity. We conceptualize emotional reactivity as a positive or negative multi-modal emotional response to an internal or external emotional cue that differs from the person’s baseline emotional state. Following Bylsma et al.'s (2008) meta-analysis on emotion reactivity in depression, we primarily focus on positive and negative emotional reactivity valence domains. However, when sufficient data is available we will report separate effect sizes for the individual emotion of anger/irritability, given it is uniquely implicated in bipolar disorders (e.g., Dutra et al., 2015; Gruber et al., 2009; Mesbah et al., 2021) and considering broader debates on how best categorize anger in the valence domain (e.g., Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). We will include studies assessing formal clinical diagnoses of bipolar disorders as well as studies using at-risk bipolar disorder measures. PRISMA guidelines will be followed and the PRISMA checklist will be completed. Gray literature will also be searched using online systems. Statistical analyses will follow recent best practices on meta-regression (e.g., Siddaway et al., 2019)
The effects of inequality and moderator variables on stereotype perception
No full textsee attached fil
Factors affecting voluntary involvement in environmental organizations
No full textExisting theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence suggest that there are several crucial factors affecting collective pro-environmental behaviour, defined as nonactivist behavior in the public-sphere (e. g. petitioning and involvement in environmental organizations; Stern, 2000) and activist behaviour (e. g. Hamann & Reese, 2020). According to SIMPEA framework, efficacy, social norms, and identity have substantial effect on involvement (Fritsche, Barth, Jugert, Masson, & Reese, 2018). Motivational approach of BUCkET framework suggests that there are five dimensions of social motives – belongingness, understanding, control, self-enhancement, and trust - having impact on pro-environmental behaviour (Brick, Bosshard, & Whitmarch, 2021). Therefore, we will investigate the effect of those predictors on collective pro-environmental behaviour.
Brick, C., Bosshard, A., & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). Motivation and climate change: A review. Current Opinion in Psychology 42, 82-88.
Hamann, K. R., & Reese, G. (2020). My influence on the world (of others): Goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro‐environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 35-53.
Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245-269.
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424
Social Work Field Instruction in the Shadow of COVID-19: a scoping review
No full textSocial Work Field Instruction in the Shadow of COVID-19: a scoping review
Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the state, nature, extent, and emerging best practices and principles in the current empirical literature on field instruction in social work. Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), the aim is to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the state of the empirical literature (i.e., range and extent) on social work field instruction published amid COVID-19? 2) What is the nature (i.e., topics, design, and methods, theoretical frameworks, outcomes measured, and incorporation of culture and diversity) of the social work field instruction empirical literature published during this period? and 3) How have practices and principles in social work field instruction adjusted, adapted, and innovated during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Inclusion criteria: Our inclusion criteria derive from the work of Bogo et al. (2020). The concept of interest is Social Work Field Instruction during COVID-19. We will include literature focused on 1) field instruction; 2) social work disciplinary orientation; 3) undergraduate or graduate-level field education; 4) student or field instructor participants (i.e., field instructors, field educators, practice educators, practice assessors, internal or external supervisors, field supervisors); and 5) COVID-19. Articles will be excluded if they: 1) focus on integrated field seminars or the faculty field liaison role only; 2) include only field coordinators or directors as participants. In terms of context, we will include all empirical literature (inclusive of all study designs), without geographic restriction, published in English between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 (22 months).
Methods: To identify relevant studies, we will search the peer-reviewed empirical literature published between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 in three steps. For the first phase we will search databases relevant to social work: Scholars Portal, ProQuest—ASSIA & Social Work abstracts, EBSCO Social Science Abstracts, and OVID Social Work Abstracts. Second, we will hand search of table of contents of relevant journals focusing on social work, field education, and practice learning. Finally, we will search the reference lists of articles included in the sample. Using a piloted screening tool, two members of the team will independently screen all titles and abstracts, followed by full article screening. Data will be extracted using a piloted form. We will synthesize (i.e., collate, summarize, and report) extracted data, presenting in narrative and table formats.
Review questions: Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), the aim is to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the state of the empirical literature (i.e., range and extent) on social work field instruction published amid COVID-19? 2) What is the nature (i.e., topics, design, and methods, theoretical frameworks, outcomes measured, and incorporation of culture and diversity) of the social work field instruction empirical literature published during this period? and 3) How have practices and principles in social work field instruction adjusted, adapted, and innovated during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Keywords: field instruction, field education, practice learning, student supervision, social work, best practices, scoping review
Eligibility criteria
Participants: Our population of interest for this review are students of social work. We will include literature focused on 1) field instruction; 2) social work disciplinary orientation; 3) undergraduate or graduate-level field education; 4) student or field instructor participants (i.e., field instructors, field educators, practice educators, practice assessors, internal or external supervisors, field supervisors); and 5) COVID-19. Our exclusion criteria are articles which: 1) focus on integrated field seminars or the faculty field liaison role only; 2) include only field coordinators or directors as participants.
Concept: The concept of interest is Social Work Field Instruction during COVID-19.
Context: Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), and given the specific challenges and changes that have been demanded in social work field instruction over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (CASWE, 2021), we have chosen to adjust our search strategy to focus on literature published between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 (22 months).
Types of Sources:This scoping review will consider all empirical study designs (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies) that meet our inclusion criteria. While we will exclude conceptual, editorial, and theses/dissertations, these exclusions will be flagged, and reference lists will be searched for additional records to screen.
Methods:We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the steps of Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework (2005), methodologically informed by Joanna Brigg’s Institute recommendations and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018).
Search strategy: The initial search strategy was constructed using the three-step framework developed by Bogo et al. (2020). Using search terms deriving from Bogo et al. (2020), using the search terms “‘field instruct*’ OR ‘field educat*’ OR ‘supervis*’ OR ‘practicum’ OR ‘practice teach*’ OR ‘practice learn*’ AND ‘social work’ AND ‘student’” (Bogo et al., 2020), we will search databases relevant to social work. These keywords and index terms will be adapted for each of the following databases relevant to social work: Scholars Portal, ProQuest—ASSIA & Social Work abstracts, EBSCO Social Science Abstracts, and OVID Social Work Abstracts. Next, we will hand search of the table of contents of relevant journals focusing on social work, field education, and practice learning including: Social Work Education, Journal of Social Work Education, The Field Educator, The Clinical Supervisor, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, Social Work Education: The international journal, The European Journal of Social Work, The British Journal of Social Work, The International Journal of Social Welfare. Finally, we will search the reference lists of articles included in the sample, and reference lists in excluded literature flagged as relevant conceptual, editorial, and theses/dissertations.
Study/Source of Evidence selection: All records identified through the search will be uploaded into Covidence software for conducting scoping and systematic reviews, and deduplicated. Using a modified version of Bogo et al.’s (2020) previously developed title and abstract screening form, we will pilot a subsample of articles with two members of the team independently screening records against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on results of the pilot, we will determine if additional rounds of piloting will be required to finalize our inclusion criteria and screening form. Two members of the team will independently screen all records by title and abstract using the revised screening form. A third member of the team will resolve any disagreements between screeners. We will then screen full texts for inclusion, recording the reasons for excluding records.
Data Extraction: We will use a modified version of Bogo et al. (2020)’s previously developed extraction form, which will include all relevant data (e.g., date, journal, study location, type of study, design/methods, participants/population, topic category, theoretical framework, models of field instruction, culture and diversity indication, key findings, field outcome measures, best practices and principles). The team will iteratively refine the tool through the pilot process, with modifications reported in the scoping review. Members of the team will independently extract data from all included papers, consulting with the team to clarify and address any questions related to extraction.
Data Analysis and Presentation: We will synthesize (i.e., collate, summarize, and report) extracted data. This will involve presenting frequencies of the quantitative data, and describing the qualitative data (Peters et al., 2020). We will use a table to present the included articles and key characteristics, with additional tables summarizing the outcomes and impacts identified, and measures used across the articles.
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Bogo, M., Sewell, K. M., Mohamud, F., & Kourgiantakis, T. (2020). Social work field instruction: A scoping review. Social Work Education, 0(0), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1842868
Canadian Association of Social Work Education. (2021). Statement on the Continued Critical Role of Field Education in Social Work Education—Updated. https://caswe-acfts.ca/statement-on-the-continued-critical-role-of-field-education-in-social-work-education-updated-2/
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-085
How does mind wandering affect statistical learning?
No full textThe study aims to explore the interaction between statistical learning and mind wandering. In our online experiment, participants practice a probabilistic sequence learning task, namely, Alternating Serial Reaction Time (ASRT) task. Between each block, participants are asked to perform brief self-reports (thought probes) by answering questions about their mindset before the questions. Here, we aim to test the hypotheses of whether and how state and trait mind wandering is related to statistical learning performance
Is More Really Merrier: Study 2 (Prolific sample)
No full textThis preregistration was initially called "Zoom Fatigue - Study 3b (Recall) - Prolific sample." The attached document includes a pre-registration of hypotheses, methods, measures, analyses, and exclusion criteria prior to data collection. The study survey is also attached
Information-structural constraints on mutual exclusivity inferences
No full textWhen children hear a novel term in the context of two potential referents--one familiar or already-named, and one novel--they tend to assume that the novel word picks out the unfamiliar referent, a pattern typically described as the “Mutual Exclusivity” (ME) effect. In a typical demonstration of ME (Markman and Wachtel 1988 et seq.), children are presented with two objects -- one of them is novel and the other has a familiar label (e.g. a car). Next, they are asked, e.g. to “Show me the dax!”; children as young as 17 months of age (Halberda 2003) reliably choose the as-yet unlabeled object. While there are several competing explanations for why children (and adults) in these tasks treat dax and car as being mutually exclusive in reference, all of them invoke a bias to avoid applying two labels to the same object.
This study explores an alternative hypothesis that the exclusivity inference, and in turn the choice of referent, depends on the information structure of the carrier sentences. Information structure is a cover term for a set of pre-theoretic concepts (focus, givenness, topicality) that have to do with discourse coherence. We take a fairly standard (in Linguistics) assumption that information structure is an aspect of the syntactic representation of sentences, with specific rules for intonation and semantic interpretation. Relevantly here, we assume the existence of two distinct markers that serve to relate a sentence, and the information expressed by it, to the surrounding discourse (Kratzer & Selkirk, Buring, Schwarzschild):
Givenness (G) markers, which are sensitive to whether the meaning of an expression has been made salient in and thus recoverable from the preceding discourse; given expressions are de-accented/de-stressed.
Focus (F) markers, which evoke alternatives to an expression, thereby establishing contrast with some part of the preceding discourse; focused expressions are emphasized/stressed.
Together, G- and F- markers signal which parts of a given sentence matches (is anaphoric to) and contrasts with parts of the surrounding discourse.
Here, we test the hypothesis that mutual exclusivity inferences can arise in a ME-paradigm as a result of the selective use conditions (emphasis/stress or lack thereof) imposed by G- and F- marking. While past studies did not systematically manipulate this variable to our knowledge, we suggest they may have tended to present their linguistic stimuli as in (3), with prosodic prominence--and thus, presumed F-marking--on the novel label. We think this is likely because that is the grammatical way, in standard English, to refer to an object that is being introduced into the discourse for the first time.
Look at the car.
Now look at [the DAX]F.
The use condition on F-marking demands that the context makes salient a distinct alternative to dax (i.e. a contrasting meaning). There is only one salient alternative to dax, namely car. In order to meet the use conditions on F-marking, car must not entail dax, i.e. dax must not be another name for car, nor should dax be a subtype of car. Therefore, the dax must not pick out something that can be picked out by the term the car, i.e. the item already pointed to.
If contrast between F-marking and G-marking, rather than contrast between the labels, drives ME-effects, we predict that removing the F-marker should result in a change in referent selection even as the labels stay the same. If, instead, dax was G-marked (indicated by prosodic de-accenting), the comprehender should look for something in the preceding discourse that has already made salient the relevant meaning. In this case, ME-effects should no longer arise -- G-marking should lead participants to infer that the previously labeled and known object -- the car -- can be referred to as a dax. In this study, we manipulate F- and G- marking on the prompted noun-phrase and ask whether rates of ME-driven selection shifts as a consequence.
In the first version of our paradigm, we seek to establish whether the cues in information structure alone are sufficient to produce an ME effect when the nouns/labels do not necessarily contrast. To avoid a contrast between a known and a novel label, we will show participants two novel objects. First, we will unambiguously label one of two objects (e.g. blicket). Then in our test phrase we will use the NP “the toy” either F-marked, or G-marked with corresponding predictions of how children should interpret them.
We use the noun-phrase “the toy” instead of “the dax” as the target phrase that probes the ME effect because “toy” could be -- but does not have to be -- a superordinate category that describes both objects. The use of non-contrasting labels might make ME-inferences (the blicket is not a toy) less likely while making co-referential readings (the blicket is a kind of toy) more likely as a whole. This creates the condition to test whether information structure alone can induce an ME effect, independently of whether contrast between labels is also sufficient to do so.
When hearing F-marking on “the toy”, children should assume that “the toy” is an alternative to a salient discourse antecedent - in particular one that cannot entail toy. The only salient antecedent is “blicket”. What follows is that “blicket” cannot entail toy. If this is true then it follows that the referent of “the toy” can only be the other object. On the other hand, when “the toy” is G-marked children should assume that the meaning is recoverable from the available discourse. As “blicket” is the only salient discourse antecedent they should assume that “the toy” refers to that
Married or on a Date? The Role of the Victim-Perpetrator Relationship on Responsibility Attribution for Heterosexual Rape in Iran
No full textThe aim of the present study is to investigate how Iranian women and men perceive rape depending on the victim-perpetrator relationship (date rape vs. marital rape), by examining the following predictors: perceiver gender, endorsement of honor norms, and fundamental religiosity in the association of relationship status and rape perceptions (i.e., responsibility attributions, judgment of rape and punishment of the perpetrator). For this purpose, participants will read a vignette describing a rape scenario, in which the victim and the perpetrator are either married or on a date