Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

4 results

  • 3 - The Cognitive Ambiguity

  • from Part I - Ambivalence: The Triple Challenge of Negotiation
  • Georg Berkel
  • Book:
    Learning to Negotiate
    Published online:
    29 September 2020
    Print publication:
    24 September 2020, pp 126-150

  • Summary

    The “Great Rationality Debate” is based on whether or not humans are rational. We have two systems of thinking at our disposal: Deliberation and intuition. These systems sometimes agree, but often demand different things. This is reflected in negotiation: Because of the paradoxical nature of the task, the two systems regularly recommend different approaches. This chapter explains the benefits and limitations of both intuition and deliberation, illustrated with case studies from all walks of life.

  • 6 - The Illusion of Acumen

  • from Part II - Blocking: The Three Traps of Learning
  • Georg Berkel
  • Book:
    Learning to Negotiate
    Published online:
    29 September 2020
    Print publication:
    24 September 2020, pp 183-194

  • Summary

    The trap is the illusion of accumen, which makes us believe that our thinking about the challenge at hand is already accurate, even though we might only follow our intuition or deliberation. This is aggravated by the difficulty of obtaining good feedback in a “wicked” learning environment, where there are no incentives to disclose valuable information when the transaction is concluded. Together, the three illusions can block our advance in learning to negotiate. Because we have correctly learned something (such as one side of the Yin & Yang, some of the tools from the toolkit, one method of thinking), realizing that its opposite can also be true is very difficult.

  • Distinguishing between depression and anxiety: A proposal for an extension of the tripartite model

  • M.E. den Hollander-Gijsman, E. de Beurs, N.J.A. van der Wee, Y.R. van Rood, F.G. Zitman
  • Journal:
    European Psychiatry / Volume 25 / Issue 4 / May 2010
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 April 2020, pp. 197-205
  • Aim

    The aim of the current study was to develop scales that assess symptoms of depression and anxiety and can adequately differentiate between depression and anxiety disorders, and also can distinguish within anxiety disorders. As point of departure, we used the tripartite model of Clark and Watson that discerns three dimensions: negative affect, positive affect and physiological hyperarousal.

    Methods

    Analyses were performed on the data of 1449 patients, who completed the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire (MASQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). From this, 1434 patients were assessed with a standardized diagnostic interview.

    Results

    A model with five dimensions was found: depressed mood, lack of positive affect, somatic arousal, phobic fear and hostility. The scales appear capable to differentiate between patients with a mood and with an anxiety disorder. Within the anxiety disorders, somatic arousal was specific for patients with panic disorder. Phobic fear was associated with panic disorder, simple phobia and social anxiety disorder, but not with generalized anxiety disorder.

    Conclusions

    We present a five-factor model as an extension of the tripartite model. Through the addition of phobic fear, anxiety is better represented than in the tripartite model. The new scales are capable to accurately differentiate between depression and anxiety disorders, as well as between several anxiety disorders.

  • The validity and clinical utility of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) with older adult New Zealanders

  • Margaret H. Roberts, Richard B. Fletcher, Paul L. Merrick
  • Journal:
    International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 26 / Issue 2 / February 2014
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 November 2013, pp. 325-333
  • Background:

    The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) has established use with older adult populations in New Zealand but few studies have evaluated its psychometric properties. Research with the psychometric properties of the HADS in elderly populations has primarily used correlational methods that do not allow for the effects of measurement error to be observed. The hypothesized tripartite model of anxiety and depression within the HADS was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methods.

    Methods:

    Overall, 203 community-dwelling older adults who were recruited from older adult community groups completed the HADS. Competing two- and three-factor structures were trialled using CFA.

    Results:

    A three-factor model indicated a lack of differentiation between factors and poor clinical utility and was rejected in favor of a two-factor model. Significant correlations were observed between the anxiety and depression factors on the two-factor model, but it was considered to have validity for older adult samples. Good internal consistency was found for the HADS.

    Conclusions:

    A two-factor model of the HADS was favored due to the lack of differentiation between factors on the three-factor model, and the higher clinical utility of a two-factor solution. The validity of the HADS may be limited by over-diagnosing anxiety in non-clinical populations. It is recommended that the HADS be used to measure change over time through treatment and not be used as a diagnostic tool until future research establishes appropriate norms and cut-offs.