Should we debrief and counsel people who have had psychological shock?

Design: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing. Setting: A British teaching hospital (the Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford). Patients: 66 men and 40 women, aged 17–69 years, admitted to hospital after a motor vehicle accident. Most had been the driver of a car. Median admission duration was four days for the 52 control patients and eight days for the 54 who underwent the intervention. Interventions: A debriefing of about one hour on Day 2 of admission, encouraging patients to describe the accident and express their emotions, followed by a cognitive appraisal which included describing common reactions to traumatic experiences and suggesting a range of people who might be able to assist in the future, including the patient's general practitioner. 91 patients were assessed at four months and 61 were assessed at three years. Control patients had no debriefing or counselling. Main outcome measures: Impact of Event Scale (IES, which focuses on intrusive thoughts and avoidance of similar situations to the event); Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI, a measure of 53 symptoms); and other questions related to physical pain and functional activities. Main results: At four months there was still considerable psychological morbidity among the patients who were followed up. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in changes of IES between the 42 who received the intervention, in whom it increased from 15 (standard deviation [SD], 15) to 16 (SD, 15), and the 49 controls, in whom it fell from 15 (SD, 12) to 13 (SD, 14). Similarly, two subscales of the BSI score changed significantly between the intervention group, among whom it deteriorated from 0.5 (SD, 0.5) to 0.6 (SD, 0.8), and the control s, in whom it hardly changed from 0.4 (SD, 0.3) to 0.4 (SD, 0.4). Among the 61 patients followed for three years, the 30 randomised to receive the intervention were significantly worse, by self-report, both psychologically and physically. Their mean IES score deteriorated from a baseline of 15 (SD, 14) to 16 (SD, 18). In comparison, scores for the 31 control patients improved from 16 (SD, 12) to 13 (SD, 17). The difference in change was significant (P < 0.05). Among all patients with high initial scores, these decreased among the controls but not among those receiving the intervention. Conclusion: Psychological counselling should only be used in the context of trials rather than routine care.

Opposing roles for medial and central amygdala in the initiation of noradrenergic cell responses to a psychological stressor

Psychological stressors trigger the activation of medullary noradrenergic cells, an effect that has been shown to depend upon yet-to-be-identified structures located higher in the brain. To test whether the amygdala is important in this regard, we examined the effects of amygdala lesions on noradrenergic cell responses to restraint, and also looked at whether any amygdala cells that respond to restraint project directly to the medulla. Ibotenic acid lesions of the medial amygdala completely abolished restraint-induced Fos expression in A1 and A2 noradrenergic cells. In contrast, lesions of the central amygdala actually facilitated noradrenergic cell responses to restraint. Tracer deposits in the dorsomedial (but not ventrolateral) medulla retrogradely labelled many cells in the central nucleus of the amygdala, but none of these cells expressed Fos in response to restraint. These data suggest for the first time that the medial amygdala is critical to the activation of medullary noradrenergic cells by a psychological stressor whereas the central nucleus exerts an opposing, inhibitory influence upon noradrenergic cell recruitment. The initiation of noradrenergic cell responses by the medial amygdala does not involve a direct projection to the medulla. Accordingly, a relay through some other structure, such as the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus, warrants careful consideration.

Direction of Causation Modeling Between Cross-Sectional Measures of Parenting and Psychological Distress in Female Twins

Under certain conditions, cross-sectional analysis of cross-twin intertrait correlations can provide important information about the direction of causation (DOC) between two variables. A community-based sample of Australian female twins aged 18 to 45 years was mailed an extensive Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire (HLQ) that covered a wide range of personality and behavioral measures. Included were self-report measures of recent psychological distress and perceived childhood environment (PBI). Factor analysis of the PBI yielded three interpretable dimensions: Coldness, Overprotection, and Autonomy. Univariate analysis revealed that parental Overprotection and Autonomy were best explained by additive genetic, shared, and nonshared environmental effects (ACE), whereas the best-fitting model for PBI Coldness and the three measures of psychological distress (Depression, Phobic Anxiety, and Somatic Distress) included only additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects (AE). A common pathway model best explained the covariation between (1) the three PBI dimensions and (2) the three measures of psychological distress. DOC modeling between latent constructs of parenting and psychological distress revealed that a model which specified recollected parental behavior as the cause of psychological distress provided a better fit than a model which specified psychological distress as the cause of recollected parental behavior. Power analyses and limitations of the findings are discussed.

Putting the group back into unions: A social psychological contribution to understanding union support

Industrial relations research that attempts to grapple with individuals' union-related sentiments and activities often draws on one of two traditions of psychological research—the individual-level factors tradition (for example, personality and attitude-behaviour relations) and the social context tradition (for example, frustration-aggression and relative deprivation). This paper provides an overview of research conducted from within these traditions to explain union-related phenomena and identifies some of the limitations that arise as a consequence of a shared tendency to treat people in an atomistic fashion. The paper argues for an understanding of the psychological processes that underpin group-based action. To this end, it elaborates a theoretical framework based on social identity theory and self-categorisation theory that would allow us to examine the dynamic interplay between the individual, their cognitions and their environment. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of a specific case of union mobilisation, to indicate how this theoretical framework might aid empirical analysis.