ABSTRACT: Disgust is a basic emotion characterized by revulsion and rejection, yet it is relatively unexamined in the literature on prejudice. In the present investigation, interpersonal-disgust sensitivity (e.g., not wanting to wear clean used clothes or to sit on a warm seat vacated by a stranger) in particular predicted negative attitudes toward immigrants, foreigners, and socially deviant groups, even after controlling for concerns with contracting disease. The mechanisms underlying the link between interpersonal disgust and attitudes toward immigrants were explored using a path model. As predicted, the effect of interpersonal-disgust sensitivity on group attitudes was indirect, mediated by ideological orientations (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism) and dehumanizing perceptions of the out-group. The effects of social dominance orientation on group attitudes were both direct and indirect, via dehumanization. These results establish a link between disgust sensitivity and prejudice that is not accounted for by fear of infection, but rather is mediated by ideological orientations and dehumanizing group representations. Implications for understanding and reducing prejudice are discussed.

Hodson, G. & Costello, K. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanisation as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691-698.

Horowitz, A.V. and Wakefield, J.C. (2007). The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. NY: Oxford University Press. (link to Amazon.com)

Suggests that loss of treatment response is likely due to loss of placebo response

Providence, RI – A new study by Rhode Island Hospital researchers indicates that a relapse during antidepressant continuation treatment may be due to a relapse in patients who were not true drug responders. The loss of drug response may be due to loss of placebo response (a positive medical response to taking a placebo as if it were an active medication.). The study was published in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Historically, the treatment of depression is divided into three phases – initial/acute, continuation and maintenance. During the initial phase, the goal is to reduce symptoms and psychosocial impairment. During the continuation phase, usually six months to one year after initial treatment response, the goal is to maintain the gains and prevent a relapse. In the maintenance phase, which occurs after a sustained period of improvement, the goal is to further maintain the gains and prevent recurrence of the disorder.

Mark Zimmerman, MD, director of outpatient psychiatry at Rhode Island Hospital and associate professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, is the paper’s lead author. Zimmerman, along with his colleague Tavi Thongy, MD, also of Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University, conducted a meta-analysis of continuation studies of new generation antidepressants that began as placebo-controlled acute phase studies. Treatment studies of depression have found that approximately 50 to 65 percent of patients respond to medication and that approximately 25 to 35 percent respond to placebo.

Past studies have indicated that a number of patients who respond to treatment in the initial phase experience a relapse or recurrence despite ongoing pharmacotherapy during the two latter phases of treatment. This return of symptoms is often interpreted as a loss of efficacy of antidepressant activity, and is referred to as tachyphylaxis or the “poop-out” effect. Zimmerman says, “When a patient improves after being prescribed an antidepressant medication you do not know if they got better because of the medication or because they had a placebo response.”

The researchers used formulas developed by Quitkin and colleagues more than a decade ago to calculate the relapse rate attributable to relapse in presumptive placebo responders. “Our study suggests that the return of symptoms despite ongoing treatment during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment may not represent a loss of drug effect because the patient may not have experienced a true drug response in the first place.” Zimmerman also notes, “While our conclusion is limited to the continuation phase of treatment, our results suggest that these findings probably also apply to the maintenance phase of treatment.”

The researchers note that these findings are not inconsistent with conclusions that continuation and maintenance studies of antidepressants have clearly established the benefit of ongoing treatment beyond the acute phase.

Dollinger, S.J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1025-1035.

Abstract
Across a range of disciplines it is assumed that conservatism and creativity are polar opposites. Although conservatism correlates negatively with appreciation of certain art forms, are conservatives in fact less creative? Four hundred and twenty-two undergraduates completed a Creative Behavior Inventory and creative products judged by the consensual assessment technique. Compared to more liberal college students, those endorsing more conservative positions on a brief version of the Conservatism scale had fewer creative accomplishments and devised photo essays and drawings judged as less creative. Results for accomplishments and drawing products held true when controlling for verbal ability and openness.

There’s a troubling psychological phenomenon that just about everyone has experienced but few will admit to; having difficulty distinguishing between people of different racial groups. This isn’t merely a nod to the denigrating expression “they all look the same.” Indeed, the “cross-race effect” is one of the most well replicated findings in psychological research and can lead to embarrassment, social castigation, or the disturbingly common occurrence of eye-witness misidentifications.

Although a potentially charged experience, the causes of the cross-race effect are unclear. In one camp, psychologists argue that in a society where de facto segregation is the norm, people often don’t have much practice with individuals of other racial groups and are thus less capable of recognizing distinguishing features. But researchers from Miami University have a different idea of why the cross-race effect occurs. They argue this effect arises from our tendency to categorize people into in-groups and out-groups based on social categories like social class, hobbies, and of course, race.

In a series of experiments, Miami University undergraduates were led to believe that they would view the faces of fellow Miami students (the in-group) and students from Marshall University (a perennial football rival, making them the ultimate out-group) on a computer screen. In reality, none of the faces, all of whom were white, were students at either university. By merely labeling them, however, the participants better recognized faces that they believed were fellow Miami students.

The study, conducted by psychologist Kurt Hugenberg and graduate students Michael Bernstein and Steven Young, will be published in the August issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Hugenberg and his colleagues believe the study suggests that recognition deficits can occur without the need for race or different physical characteristics, arguing instead that there is more than just unfamiliarity with other races at play in the cross-race effect. According to the researchers, “people frequently split the world up into us and them, in other words into social groups, be they racial, national, occupational, or even along the lines of university affiliation. Our work suggests that the cross-race effect is due, at least in part, to this ubiquitous tendency to see the world in terms of these in-groups and out-groups.”