The current research consisted of three studies (overall N = 338; 59 men; mean age = 19.98; SD = 1.75), which aimed to examine whether ostracism promotes aggression through enhanced feelings of rule negligence by adopting a multi-method approach. Participants were undergraduate students in a public university in Hong Kong and they only participated in one of the three studies. The results showed that ostracized participants reported higher levels of rule negligence and aggression than non-ostracized participants (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, enhanced feelings of rule negligence significantly mediated the relation between ostracism and aggression (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, priming ostracized people with the importance of following social rules weakened the effect of ostracism on aggression (Study 3). In sum, these findings highlight the critical influence of rule negligence in understanding when and why ostracism promotes aggression and how to diminish such an effect. Implications were discussed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21714 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Practitioners of medicine have a moral as well as legal obligation to serve their patients to the best of their ability, and in recent years the medical profession throughout the world has affirmed this principle. But where there is negligence of this sacred duty, a claim arises. Most civil claims are governed by the law of limitation, which restricts the time in which a plaintiff can bring a suit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHow specific is the specificity rule in duty to warn or protect jurisprudence following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Maas decision?
J Forensic Sci
January 2025
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Of the various rules establishing a mental health clinician's legal duty to take precautions to protect their patient from harming others, the most common is the specificity rule that limits the protective duty to warn reasonably identifiable victims. The specificity rule is important wherein the main or only specified protective measure is warning the victim. In the last quarter century, Pennsylvania adopted the specificity rule from its Supreme Court Emerich decision.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe Naked Neurosurgeon and the Anatomy of a Complication.
Acta Neurochir Suppl
November 2024
Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Neurosciences, Apollo Specialty Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Article Synopsis
- The paper explores the significant risk of complications faced by neurosurgeons and emphasizes the need for understanding these complications to improve surgical outcomes.
- It references historical publications by notable surgeons, highlighting how literature has shaped the field of complication management in neurosurgery.
- The author argues that staying informed about complications is crucial for both individual surgeon's development and the overall advancement of surgical practice.
The New Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Laws: Progress or Pitfall for Doctors?
Cureus
September 2024
Department of Medicine, Shri Madan Lal Khurana Chest Clinic, New Delhi, IND.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), a relic of British colonial rule, was recently replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in July 2024. While the overhaul of the IPC was largely welcomed, it has sparked significant concern among the medical community, primarily due to Section 106 of the BNS. This section mandates imprisonment for doctors involved in deaths caused by rash or negligent acts during medical procedures, which many in the profession fear could lead to a climate of fear and hesitancy in performing critical medical interventions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!