Sophie Liljedahl

Escalate shamefully, de-escalate angrily or gratefully: The influence of discrete emotions on escalation of commitment.

Decision makers often tend to escalate their commitment when faced with a dilemma of whether to continue a losing course of action. Researchers recently began to investigate the influence of discrete emotions on this decision tendency. However, this work has mainly focused on negative emotions and rarely considered positive emotions, to say nothing of comparing the effects of both of them simultaneously. The current study addresses this need by presenting the results of three experiments that examined the effects of four emotions of both positive and negative valences in escalation situations. Experiment 1 investigated the relationships of three trait emotions (hope, shame, and anger) and escalation of commitment. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the effects of three induced emotions (anger, shame, and gratitude) on escalation of commitment in a student sample and an employee sample, respectively. The results revealed that the effects of discrete emotions in escalation situations are mainly due to their associated differences on the appraisal dimension of responsibility that is related to escalation situations rather than their valence. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Individuals’ experiences with Brief Admission during the implementation of the Brief Admission Skåne RCT, a qualitative study

Abstract Background: Brief admission (BA) is an adjunctive treatment option for individuals with self-harming behavior, having traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD). It is offered alongside outpatient psychotherapy for the purpose of strengthening autonomy, self-reflection and self-care and to increase the likelihood of being able to stay in therapy by avoiding lengthy inpatient hospitalizations. Aims: To investigate participants’ experiences with BA during the pilot phase of the Brief Admission Skåne Randomized Controlled Trial (BASRCT), in order to detect possible strengths and limitations of the intervention and gain knowledge to facilitate implementation of BA at other treatment centers. Method: Eight participants randomized to BA were interviewed to obtain their experience of BA, or alternatively their reasons for choosing not to use BA. Thematic analysis was conducted upon their transcribed interviews. Results: Reported as most helpful by the participants was the structure/routines at the ward and the positive attitudes from the staff. However, some individuals reported problems with perceived negative attitudes from the staff administering BA and negative rumination about themselves. The reported reasons to request BA were: preventing urges to self-harm from escalating; ending isolation; preventing longer admissions and forced admission; feelings of emotional exhaustion, and the need for rest and support in re-creating a daily routine. Reasons for not requesting BA were fear of rejection, questioning the method; presumed room shortage; difficulties in deciding whether one’s problems are serious enough; experiencing the situation to be too clinically acute. Conclusion: The results from this study indicated the importance of repeated staff education on all aspects of BA when it is being newly implemented, as well as the importance of working with attitudes of staff delivering BA. These were the key ingredients in making BA implementation successful. Our findings may be of value to other treatment centers implementing BA for the first time. Trial registration: NCT02985047.