No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a medical diagnosis that is conceptualized as existing on a continuum between normal cognitive aging and dementia. While a growing body of research has established the impact of this condition on family members' emotional well-being, as well as the quality of family relationships, the reciprocal impact of family dynamics and the family environment on illness course has received much less attention. Expressed emotion (EE) is a measure of the family emotional climate that has been established as being highly predictive of relapse and symptom exacerbation for a variety of mental health disorders. The recent integration of attribution theory with EE has offered new insights into the underlying attitudes and beliefs that give rise to it. This mixed methods study applied the attribution model of EE to test the validity of EE in predicting the illness course of MCI, and to identify family members' attributions regarding MCI-related behaviors and symptoms that underlie their EE status. The study sample included 57 family dyads consisting of a person with MCI and a family member providing primary care or assistance. The results of the ANCOVA did not support the hypothesis that EE status would predict changes in the non-cognitive features of MCI over time. However, methods of thematic analysis revealed four major themes, or care partner attributional stances: (a) non-blaming, (b) blaming, (c) variable, and (d) no identified. The analysis also revealed three subthemes, or attributional styles, within the variable stance: (a) ambivalent, (b) mixed, and (c) complex. These attributional stances and styles intersected with family EE status in notable ways and form the basis for future research in this area, as well as clinical interventions with these families that promote adaptation to the illness. / Ph. D.

This study investigates which factors Swedish upper secondary students believe affect their learning and their results the most in the subject English. Students’ beliefs of what could benefit their learning were also investigated. Methods used in the study include focus groups and surveys. Results show that English outside of school, motivation, interest, previous experience, expectations, peer influence, effort, instructional context and the teacher are some of the factors that the participating students believe affect them the most. Regarding their test results most students attribute both positive and negative test results to their own effort. In the investigation it was also found that most students could reflect on their own learning and possible improvements in the classroom. Among the students there were three parts of the subject that most students would like to see improved: the interaction, the teacher and the type of tasks and exercises they work with.

The two problems which motivate this research concern the role of managerial accounting information in performance evaluation. The first problem is that the processing of accounting information by individual managers may deviate from a normative (Bayesian) pattern. Second, managers' use of accounting information in performance appraisal may contribute to conflict between superiors and subordinates. In this research, I applied the contrast-inertia model (C-IM) and attribution theory (AT) to predict how accounting information affects managers' beliefs about the causes for observed performance. The C-IM describes how new evidence is incorporated into opinions. Application of the C-IM leads to the prediction that information order may influence managers' opinions. Attribution theory is concerned with how people use information to assign causality, especially for success or failure. Together, the C-IM and AT imply that causal beliefs of superiors and subordinates diverge when they assimilate accounting information. Three experiments were performed with manufacturing managers as subjects. Most of the subjects were middle-level production managers from Texas manufacturing plants. The subjects used accounting information in revising their beliefs about causes for performance problems. In the experiments, the manipulated factors were the order of information, subject role (superior or subordinate), and the position of different types of information. The experimental results were analyzed by repeated measures analyses of variance, in which the dependent variable was an opinion or the change in an opinion over a series of evidence items. The experimental results indicate that the order of mixed positive and negative information affects beliefs in performance evaluation. For mixed evidence, there was significant divergence of opinions between superiors and subordinates. The results provide little evidence that superior and subordinate roles bias the belief updating process. The experiments show that belief revision in performance evaluation deviates from the normative standard, and that the use of accounting information may cause divergence of opinions between superiors and subordinates.