Mental health and stigma on campus: Insights from students' lived experience.

The JED Campus framework presents a multi-faceted approach to how colleges and universities can provide quality mental health services to their students and enhance the support of the campus community. However, research has suggested that a significant barrier to students seeking help and utilizing on-campus resources is the fear of stigma associated with mental illness. The current study was interested in learning more from students with mental health diagnoses about their experiences on campus. Focus groups were conducted and topics discussed included stigma, impact of university policies, and how resources could better address student needs. The findings suggest that students feel stigma is a significant barrier in how mental health is addressed on campus and that universities need to be more proactive in their approach to create a safe and inclusive campus for all members of the community.

Are we SAFE now? An evaluation of the Seatbelts Are for Everyone teen traffic safety program in Kansas.

Objective: Teens represent the highest risk group for automobile accidents and are almost 3 times as likely to be killed in an accident. Seat belt use interventions are one way to address this issue, and a student-led program in Kansas called Seatbelts Are For Everyone (SAFE) has increased seat belt use for the past decade. An evaluation of SAFE enabled decisions to be made about program improvement and expansion.Methods: Mixed methods examined multiple aspects of the SAFE program, including summative and formative results. Researchers investigated the program through (1) a quasi-experimental observation to explore whether seat belt use at schools implementing SAFE for the first time was higher than at non-SAFE and (2) stakeholder interviews at SAFE schools. Each method examined whether SAFE programs accomplished goals set by program staff and how SAFE could better meet schools' needs.Results: Summative results suggest that SAFE affects seat belt use. It is less influential on distracted driving but has a small but significant influence on that behavior. Stakeholders cited infrastructure and functional challenges affecting implementation, highlighting ways in which SAFE program staff could improve program compliance and outcomes. Formative recommendations included curriculum support, sharing among SAFE schools, and increasing student leadership opportunities.Conclusions: The evaluation of SAFE suggests that students are receptive to programs about seat belt and traffic safety. States may consider the recommendations for improvement of this program with other published evaluations and programs to determine how best to implement similar programs in their communities.

Defendant stereotypicality moderates the effect of confession evidence on judgments of guilt.

This research examined whether criminal stereotypes-i.e., beliefs about the typical characteristics of crime perpetrators-influence mock jurors' judgments of guilt in cases involving confession evidence. Mock jurors (N = 450) read a trial transcript that manipulated whether a defendant's ethnicity was stereotypic or counterstereotypic of a crime, and whether the defendant had confessed to the crime or not. When a confession was present, the transcript varied whether the confession had been obtained using high-pressure or low-pressure interrogation tactics. Consistent with the hypothesis, the presence of a confession (relative to no confession) increased perceptions of the defendant's guilt when the defendant was stereotypic of the crime, regardless of the interrogation tactics that had been used to obtain it. When the defendant was counterstereotypic of the crime, however, the presence of a confession did not significantly increase perceptions of guilt, even when the confession was obtained using low-pressure interrogation tactics. These findings demonstrate the potentially powerful effects of criminal stereotypes on legal judgments and suggest that individuals who fit a criminal stereotype may be disadvantaged over the course of the criminal justice process. (PsycINFO Database Record