A clear atomic example for the surface sensitivity of penning ionization

Using a crossed-beam apparatus with a double hemispherical electron spectrometer, we have studied the spectrum of electrons released in thermal energy ionizing collisions of metastable He^*(2^3S) atoms with ground state Yb(4f^14 6s^2 ^1S_0) atoms, thereby providing the first Penning electron spectrum of an atomic target with-4f-electrons. In contrast to the HeI (58.4nm) and NeI (73.6/74.4nm) photoelectron spectra of Yb, which show mainly 4f- and 6s-electron emission in about a 5:1 ratio, the He^*(2^3S) Penning electron spectrum is dominated by 6s-ionization, acoompnnied by some correlation- induced 6p-emission (8% Yb+( 4f^14 6p^2P) formation) and very little 4f-ionization (<_~ 2.5%). This astounding result is attributed to the electron exchange mechanism for He^*(2^3S) ionization and reflects the poor overlap of the target 4f-electron wavefunction with the 1s-hole of He^*(2^3S), as discussed on thc basis of Dirac-Fock wave functions for the Yb orbitals and through calculations of the partial ionization cross sections involving semiempirical complex potentiale. The presented case may be regarded as the elearest atomic example for the surface sensitivity of He^*(2^3S) Penning ionization observed so far.

Does interpersonal behavior of psychotherapy trainees differ in private and professional relationships?

• Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of trainees’ interpersonal behavior on work involvement (WI) and compared their social behavior within professional and private relationships as well as between different psychotherapeutic orientations. • Methods: The interpersonal scales of the Intrex short-form questionnaire and the Work Involvement Scale (WIS) were used to evaluate two samples of German psychotherapy trainees in psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, and cognitive behavioral therapy training. Trainees from Sample 1 (N = 184) were asked to describe their interpersonal behavior in relation to their patients when filling out the Intrex, whereas trainees from Sample 2 (N = 135) were asked to describe the private relationship with a significant other. • Results: Interpersonal affiliation in professional relationships significantly predicted the level of healing involvement, while stress involvement was predicted by interpersonal affiliation and interdependence in trainees’ relationships with their patients. Social behavior within professional relationships provided higher correlations with WI than private interpersonal behavior. Significant differences were found between private and professional relation settings in trainees’ interpersonal behavior with higher levels of affiliation and interdependence with significant others. Differences between therapeutic orientation and social behavior could only be found when comparing trainees’ level of interdependence with the particular relationship setting. • Conclusion: Trainees’ interpersonal level of affiliation in professional relationships is a predictor for a successful psychotherapeutic development. Vice versa, controlling behavior in professional settings can be understood as a risk factor against psychotherapeutic growth. Both results strengthen an evidence-based approach for competence development during psychotherapy training.