ABSTRACT
There is continuous debate how closely or loosely emotion is linked to behavior and especially to facial expressions. In strong versions of the so-called facial feedback hypothesis, it is assumed that facial activity can intensify, modulate and initiate emotions. The hypothesis has been largely investigated with various emotions, however, surprise was tested only in a few studies. Additionally, it has been discussed frequently how obtrusively manipulations of facial feedback as well as the dependent measures are. Thus, in the present experiment we analyzed whether unobtrusive facial feedback of surprise versus no-surprise can modulate reactions following deviations in an implicit sequence learning task. Participants had to quickly and accurately press keys which corresponded to one of four letters appearing at the screen. After several blocks in which a standard sequence (consisting of a predefined order of 12 letters) was repeated, standard sequences and deviation sequences (i.e. one element differed from the standard sequence) were intermixed. The results confirmed our hypothesis: Participants of the surprise face condition showed longer reaction times to deviation sequences than to standard sequences. In contrast, participants of the no-surprise face condition did not show this difference in reaction times. Results were discussed with respect to implicit learning as well as to theories on emotion and facial feedback taking the special status of surprise into account (AU)
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Facial Expression , Expressed Emotion , Emotions , Attitude , Intention , Set, PsychologyABSTRACT
AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the use of the National Nursing Expert Standard Pressure Ulcer Prevention and the pressure ulcer prevalence in German nursing homes and hospitals. METHODS: Data were collected within two nationwide surveys conducted by the Department of Nursing Science of the Charité, Berlin, Germany. The surveys, designed as cross-sectional prevalence studies, serve as an investigation of the amount of clinically relevant nursing phenomena, i. e., pressure ulcers. Prevalence per facility in the at-risk group was explored by a ranking procedure of the 95 nursing homes and hospitals. The facilities were divided into two groups according to whether they used the German Expert Standard to develop the local protocol or not. RESULTS: The pressure ulcer prevalence of the at-risk group ranged from 0% to 24.6% in nursing homes and from 7% to 40% in hospitals. In about 40% of the hospitals and nursing homes the local protocol of pressure ulcer prevention was based on the German Expert Standard. The ranking figure indicates that there is no statistically significant relation between Expert Standard-based local protocols and the pressure ulcer prevalence in the at-risk group. CONCLUSION: A clear advantage to use the German Expert Standard compared with other sources cannot be shown with these data. However, a uniform pressure ulcer prevention is an essential quality feature of nursing care. The degree of implementation and the consequent transfer of the recommendations to daily practice should be evaluated regularly.
