1,721,087 research outputs found
Fear, anxiety and health-related consequences after the COVID-19 epidemic
Full text linkThe current COVID-19 pandemic is causing direct and indirect effects in the global population. In this paper, fear and its possible forthcoming consequences on health will be investigated and discussed. Fear is an innate reactive emotion to the immediate threats produced by danger. It is hardwired within subcortical survival circuits and originally had to defend the organism from predators. Besides, fear is a cognitive emotional process mediated by the cortical structures, and implies a subjective evaluation both at implicit (subsymbolic, unconscious) and explicit (symbolic, conscious) levels. Within a defensive taxonomy framework, fear can be defined as a reflex triggering a prompt behavior aimed at surviving from predating attacks (freezing), whereas anxiety as a deliberate pattern aimed at planning behaviors for anticipating and avoiding future harm. Fear and anxiety overlap at a subjective level, but are generated by different neurobiological networks and serve different evolutionary goals. The current viral danger and the need for social distancing worsen the sense of loneliness. A wide body of experimental and epidemiological literature evidence that psychological stress, social isolation, and loneliness have a detrimental effect on multiple health-related outcomes including comorbidity, multimorbidity, and mortality. The negative effects can be even higher for people currently living a massive limitation of physical and interpersonal contacts. A strong effort to integrate psychological and medical care is needed to face post-pandemic health issues
Comment on the paper by Francesco Bottaccioli & Anna Giulia Bottaccioli “Franz Alexander, a contemporary scientist: A new paradigm for psychology and medicine”
No full textThis comment on Bottaccioli & Bottaccioli’s (2024a) article critically analyzes Franz Alexander’s role in developing contemporary psychosomatics in both its innovative aspects and limitations. On the one hand, Alexander contributed to emancipating the explanation of physical symptoms from the classical approach of the early 20th century stiffened on the model of hysterical conversion and promoted the organization of the international psychosomatic movement, including the Italian one. On the other hand, his limitations mainly concern the theoretical approach typical of 20th century psychoanalysis: adopting a one-dimensional model centered on intrapsychic conflict and the indeterminacy – necessary for the time – of a biological “X” factor as mediator. Instead, in the second half of the 20th century, a deficit-centered model of explanation (e.g., alexithymia) and complexity (e.g., biopsychosocial model) emerged, in which various moderating biomedical, psychological, and socio-cultural factors assume different relative weights in the explanation of physical illnesses and the clinical management of patients
The scientific assessment of personality. Empirical evidence and environmental contexts
No full textPersonality is viewed as patterns of psychological and behavioral characteristics that are supposed to be constant and individuate individual differences that are shown in a wide range of social and personal contexts. This paper illustrates 3 issues. 1) Evidence on personality assessment shows that the range of effect sizes of personality tests are similar to those obtained in medicine. 2) Personality assessment is largely dependent on external contexts (social relations, attachment bonds) and biological aspects (epigenetic mechanisms). 3) The quality of personality assessment is dependent on the information source (self-report scales, observer-rated instruments, performance-based tools) and the inferential process (nomothetic and idiographic approaches)
Medicina psicosomatica e psicologia clinica. Modelli teorici, diagnosi, trattamento - Nuova edizione
No full text
- …
