Erin J. Strahan

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.

Despite the widespread use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, researchers often make questionable decisions when conducting these analyses. This article reviews the major design and analytical decisions that must be made when conducting a factor analysis and notes that each of these decisions has important consequences for the obtained results. Recommendations that have been made in the methodological literature are discussed. Analyses of 3 existing empirical data sets are used to illustrate how questionable decisions in conducting factor analyses can yield problematic results. The article presents a survey of 2 prominent journals that suggests that researchers routinely conduct analyses using such questionable methods. The implications of these practices for psychological research are discussed, and the reasons for current practices are reviewed.

Subliminal priming and persuasion: Striking while the iron is hot

Three studies demonstrated that subliminally priming a goal-relevant cognition (thirst in Studies 1 and 2; sadness in Study 3) influenced behavior (in Study 1) and enhanced the persuasiveness of an ad targeting the goal (in Studies 2 and 3) when people were motivated to pursue the goal (when they were thirsty in Studies 1 and 2; when they expected to interact with another person in Study 3). These results suggest that subliminal priming can be used to enhance persuasion, but only when certain conditions are met. Both the priming of goal-relevant cognitions and the motive to pursue the goal were necessary for ads targeting the goal to be more persuasive. The implications of these results for the role of functionality in subliminal priming and for the use and abuse of subliminal priming in persuasion are discussed.

‘I Know I Can Help You’: Parental Self‐efficacy Predicts Adolescent Outcomes in Family‐based Therapy for Eating Disorders

Family-based therapy is regarded as best practice for the treatment of eating disorders in adolescents. In family-based therapy, parents play a vital role in bringing their child or adolescent to health; however, little is known about the parent-related mechanisms of change throughout treatment. The present study examines parent and adolescent outcomes of family-based therapy as well as the role of parental self-efficacy in relation to adolescent eating disorder, depressed mood and anxiety symptoms. Forty-nine adolescents and their parents completed a series of measures at assessment, at 3-month post-assessment and at 6-month follow-up. Results indicate that, throughout treatment, parents experienced an increase in self-efficacy and adolescents experienced a reduction in symptoms. Maternal and paternal self-efficacy scores also predicted adolescent outcomes throughout treatment. These results are consistent with the philosophy of the family-based therapy model and add to the literature on possible mechanisms of change in the context of family-based therapy.

The influence of carer fear and self-blame when supporting a loved one with an eating disorder

ABSTRACT Carers often feel disempowered and engage in behaviours that inadvertently enable their loved one’s ED symptoms and yet little is known regarding these processes. This study examined the relationships among fear, self-blame, self-efficacy, and accommodating and enabling behaviours in 137 carers of adolescents and adults with ED. The results revealed that fear and self-blame predicted low carer self-efficacy in supporting their loved one’s recovery as well as the extent to which carers reported engaging in recovery-interfering behaviours. The relevance of these findings are discussed in the context of family-oriented ED therapies and highlight the importance for clinicians to attend to and help to process strong emotions in carers, in order to improve their supportive efforts and, ultimately, ED outcomes.

Increasing parental self-efficacy with emotion-focused family therapy for eating disorders: a process model

ABSTRACT A process model was tested whereby parental fear and self-blame were targeted in order to enhance parental self-efficacy and supportive efforts in the context of emotion-focused family therapy (EFFT) for eating disorders (ED). A 2-day EFFT group intervention was delivered to parents of adolescent and adult children with ED. Data were collected from eight treatment sites (N = 124). Data were analyzed using t-tests, regression analyses and structural equation modeling. The findings supported the proposed process model. Through the processing of parents’ maladaptive fear and self-blame, parents felt more empowered to support their child’s recovery. This increase in self-efficacy led to an increase in parents’ intentions to engage in recovery-focused behaviors. This study is the first to test a method for clinicians to increase supportive efforts by targeting and enhancing caregiver self-efficacy via the processing of emotion.

Content Versus Process: If There Is Independence, Can There Still Be Two Levels of Information Processing?

In this commentary, we begin by describing Kruglanski and Thompsons main point. We then discuss their evidence and suggest some ways to strengthen their argument. Finally, we attempt to summarize Kruglanski and Thompsons position and speculate as to where the debate currently stands. First, then, we describe briefly what we see as the main point of Kruglanski and Thompsons article. They propose that persuasion occurs through a single route. This is in direct contrast to the dual-route models of Petty and Cacioppo (1986) and Chaiken (1987), in which persuasion is thought to occur through two distinct routes (i.e., deep vs. shallow processing).1 Kruglanski and Thompson discuss past research by Petty and Cacioppo and by Chaiken and focus on the two types of persuasive information used in this research: source information (which they call cues or heuristics) and message content.2 Kruglanski and Thompsons basic argument is that content of the persuasive information is not related to the process (or route) of persuasion. That is, they believe that one type of persuasive information is not always linked to a specific type of processing. Although past research has linked source information to shallow processing and message content to deep processing, Kruglanski and Thompson think this is misleading. They argue that the crucial distinction between source information and message content refers to informational contents relevant to a conclusion, rather than a qualitative difference in the persuasive process itself. In short, they believe that the content of a persuasive communication is independent from the process of persuasion. Kruglanski and Thompson call their model a unimodel of persuasion because they believe that persuasion occurs through the same syllogistic reasoning process, regardless of whether the evidence is in the form of message content or source information. That is, they believe that persuasion occurs through a single route and that the content of the persuasive communication is independent from this single process of persuasion.