Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries.

People differ in their general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories (that is, conspiracy mentality). Previous research yielded inconsistent findings on the relationship between conspiracy mentality and political orientation, showing a greater conspiracy mentality either among the political right (a linear relation) or amongst both the left and right extremes (a curvilinear relation). We revisited this relationship across two studies spanning 26 countries (combined N = 104,253) and found overall evidence for both linear and quadratic relations, albeit small and heterogeneous across countries. We also observed stronger support for conspiracy mentality among voters of opposition parties (that is, those deprived of political control). Nonetheless, the quadratic effect of political orientation remained significant when adjusting for political control deprivation. We conclude that conspiracy mentality is associated with extreme left- and especially extreme right-wing beliefs, and that this non-linear relation may be strengthened by, but is not reducible to, deprivation of political control.

Beyond contingency awareness: the role of influence awareness in resisting conditioned attitudes.

Evaluative conditioning procedures change people's evaluations of stimuli that are paired with pleasant or unpleasant items. To test whether influence awareness allows people to resist such persuasive attempts, we conducted three experiments. In the first two experiments featuring low levels of influence awareness (N1 = 96, N2 = 93) we manipulated the degree of control people have in expressing their attitudes, by providing participants in one condition with the option to "pass" rather than respond, when they felt influenced in their evaluations of conditioned stimuli. In the third experiment (N3 = 240) we manipulated the level of influence awareness by using a warning instruction similar to the one found in prior controllability studies, while giving everyone the option to pass the evaluation when they felt influenced. All studies found that participants often failed to use the skip option to exert control over conditioned preferences. In some cases, this may be because participants failed to notice the pairings, but in most cases because participants lacked awareness that the pairings could influence them. Even when explicitly warned that the pairings could influence them, participants seemed to believe that they were not vulnerable to such effects.

Personality characteristics that are valued in teams: Not always "more is better"?

This study investigates the relationships between personality traits and contributions to teamwork that are often assumed to be linear. We use a theory-driven approach to propose that extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness have inverted U-shaped relationships with contributions to teamwork. In a sample of 220 participants asked to perform a creative task in teams, we found that extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness were curvilinearly associated with peer-rated contributions to teamwork in such a way that the associations were positive, with a decreasing slope, up to a peak, and then they became negative as personality scores further increased. We replicated the results concerning the non-linear association between extraversion, conscientiousness and peer-rated contributions to teamwork in a sample of 314 participants engaged in a collaborative learning exercise. Our results support recent claims and empirical evidence that explorations of personality-work-related behaviours relationships should move beyond the linearity assumptions. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for personnel selection.

Personality, relationship conflict, and teamwork-related mental models.

This study seeks to explore whether neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness moderate the influence of relationship conflict experienced in groups on changes in group members' evaluative cognitions related to teamwork quality (teamwork-related mental models). Data from 216 students, nested in 48 groups were analyzed using a multilevel modeling approach. Our results show that the experience of relationship conflict leads to a negative shift from the pre-task to the post-task teamwork-related mental models. Moreover, the results indicate that conscientiousness buffered the negative association between relationship conflict and the change in teamwork-related mental models. Our results did not support the hypothesized moderating effect of agreeableness and show that the detrimental effect of relationship conflict on the shift in teamwork-related mental models is accentuated for group members scoring low rather than high on neuroticism. These findings open new research venues for exploring the association between personality, coping styles and change in teamwork-related mental models.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cognitive therapy, rational emotive behavioral therapy, and fluoxetine (Prozac) in treating depression: a randomized clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cognitive therapy (CT), rational emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), and fluoxetine (Prozac) for major depressive disorder (MDD) were compared in a randomized clinical trial with a Romanian sample of 170 clients. Each intervention was offered for 14 weeks, plus three booster sessions. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained prior to intervention, 7 and 14 weeks following the start of intervention, and 6 months following completion of intervention. CT, REBT, and fluoxetine did not differ significantly in changes in the BDI, depression-free days (DFDs), or Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Average BDI scores decreased from 31.1 before treatment to 9.7 six months following completion of treatment. Due to lower costs, both psychotherapies were more cost-effective, and had better cost-utility, than pharmacotherapy: median $26.44/DFD gained/month for CT and $23.77/DFD gained/month for REBT versus $34.93/DFD gained/month for pharmacotherapy, median $/QALYs=$1,638, $1,734, and $2,287 for CT, REBT, and fluoxetine (Prozac), respectively.