Methods: Fifty-three female ECEs self-reported on their ACEs and posttraumatic growth. Parents of 157 children (53% male, 47% female, M age = 4.38 years) rated children’s EF.

Results: In a set of linear mixed models that accounted for multiple demographic factors and ECE perceived workplace stressors, ECE ACEs were not significantly related to children’s EF scores. However, controlling for ACEs, higher levels of ECE post-traumatic growth were associated with fewer parent-reported EF difficulties in children.

Discussion: ECEs may draw on the coping skills they have developed in times of adversity to model and promote healthy EF for children. Mental health supports to facilitate ECEs’ processing of their own trauma may be a fruitful means to foster positive early childhood environments that nurture the well-being and resilience of future generations.

The purpose of this chapter is to reframe this American dream around contemporary research and conceptual frameworks of resilience, and to show how these frameworks can be foundations for classroom level interventions that contribute to students’ psychological wellness and strengthen their competence. The chapter uses Masten and Coatsworth’s (1998) simple defini­tion of resilience: “Resilience is how children overcome adversity to achieve good developmen­tal outcomes” (p. 205). Within this definition, our own sons and daughters would not be considered “resilient” although they are successful adults, because they did not struggle with significant adversity in their first three decades of life. Alternatively, in many schools where we have worked, substantial numbers of children came to school hungry, frightened, with inadequate cloth­ing, or with shocking memories of family or community violence and abuse. Resilience describes the conditions that allow these children to succeed nevertheless.

This series of studies found several common and critical factors related to scholarly productivity, including centers of excellence, mentorship, collaboration, research management, time management, writing, and support. What follows is a thumbnail synopsis of previous findings.

Methods: Participants were 4,328 college students (4,195 cisgender, 30 binary transgender, 103 gender diverse) from eight U.S. institutions of higher education.

Results: The majority (84.2%) of TGD students and 34.6% of cisgender students perceived there were too few gender-neutral bathrooms on their campus. Further, TGD students’ fear of harassment related to a lack of availability of gender-neutral bathrooms on campus was positively associated with psychological distress (i.e., symptoms of depression and anxiety).

Conclusion: This study highlights the significance of increasing accessibility of gender-neutral bathrooms on campuses to help mitigate TGD students’ fear of harassment and psychological distress.

There are at least two important respects in which On the Nature of Prejudice and The Future of Prejudice resemble each other and Allport’s original work. The first is that they are efforts to provide a psychological understanding of prejudice. Prejudice is not dismissed as the inexplicable result of evil in the world. Rather, it is seen as a natural phenomenon subject to psychological explanation. Second, prejudice in its basic forms is seen as normative rather than exceptional or pathological. We all have prejudices, and the explanation of our prejudices is rooted in our general psychological characteristics.

Furthermore, there are at least two important respects in which The Future of Prejudice differs from both On the Nature of Prejudice and Allport’s original volume. One is that The Future of Prejudice highlights psychoanalytic approaches to prejudice, such as a focus on stranger anxiety in infancy as an explanation for prejudicial tendencies. On the Nature of Prejudice, in contrast, is rooted in cognitive social psychology, as was Allport’s original volume (which was ahead of its time in this regard). Prejudice was seen by Allport, and continues to be seen by social psychologists of the twenty-first century, as originating in general aspects of our perception and thinking, not in early attachments and associated experiences.

The “argumentative theory of reasoning” maintains that “reasoning is a fundamentally social ability” that “has evolved to serve argumentive ends: finding and evaluating arguments in a dialogic context.” There appear to be two distinguishable theses here: first, reasoning serves argumentive ends; second, reasoning has evolved. In their moderate versions, each thesis is true and useful; their stronger versions, however, are questionable and misleading. Reasoning is both social and individual, with roots in the human genome, sensorimotor action, and subsequent individual and social coordinations and reflections. Thus reasoning serves argumentive purposes among others, and what evolves is a tendency toward developmental processes that, in supportive environments, generate progress in reasoning and argumentation.

Two excellent and complementary new books, Children and Social Exclusion and Narrative and the Politics of Identity, address the developmental roots and implications of these issues. The first reviews and integrates multiple programs of research on children’s developing judgments about dilemmas of social inclusion and exclusion. The second extends the developmental picture into adolescence with a major new study of identity development in a context of ongoing group violence.

Within the last decade, there has been a concerted effort among scholars to reach a consensus on how bullying should be defined, operationalized, and assessed, how it differs from other forms of aggression (e.g., dating violence), and how it relates to other forms of violence across early and late adolescence (Rodkin et al., 2015; Volk et al., 2017). In 2011, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened a group of international scholars and unanimously agreed that “Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psy­chological, social, or educational harm” (Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7).

Supplement attached below.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to enhance a conceptual model that incorporates technology to examine verbal and nonverbal components of communication and develop a nonverbal assessment that will be included in the virtual simulation for further testing.

Methods: This study will consist of a multistage mixed methods design, including convergent and exploratory sequential components. A convergent mixed methods study will be conducted to examine the mediating effects of nonverbal communication. Quantitative (eg, MPathic game scores, Kinect nonverbal data, objective structured clinical examination communication score, and Roter Interaction Analysis System and Facial Action Coding System coding of video) and qualitative data (eg, video recordings of MPathic–virtual reality [VR] interventions and student reflections) will be collected simultaneously. Data will be merged to determine the most crucial components of nonverbal behavior in human-computer interaction. An exploratory sequential design will proceed, consisting of a grounded theory qualitative phase. Using theoretical, purposeful sampling, interviews will be conducted with oncology providers probing intentional nonverbal behaviors. The qualitative findings will aid the development of a nonverbal communication model that will be included in a virtual human. The subsequent quantitative strand will incorporate and validate a new automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment into the virtual human simulation, MPathic-VR, by assessing interrater reliability, code interactions, and dyadic data analysis by comparing Kinect responses (system recorded) to manually scored records for specific nonverbal behaviors. Data will be integrated using building integration to develop the automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment and conduct a quality check of these nonverbal features.

Results: Secondary data from the MPathic-VR randomized controlled trial data set (210 medical students and 840 video recordings of interactions) were analyzed in the first part of this study. Results showed differential experiences by performance in the intervention group. Following the analysis of the convergent design, participants consisting of medical providers (n=30) will be recruited for the qualitative phase of the subsequent exploratory sequential design. We plan to complete data collection by July 2023 to analyze and integrate these findings.

Conclusions: The results from this study contribute to the improvement of patient-provider communication, both verbal and nonverbal, including the dissemination of health information and health outcomes for patients. Further, this research aims to transfer to various topical areas, including medication safety, informed consent processes, patient instructions, and treatment adherence between patients and providers.

Upon his death, Steve Benton, who assumed Glover’s editorship duties when he passed, penned a tribute to his former University of Nebraska advisor: -- In 1976, John went to the University of Nebraska where he spent the next 11 years as one of the premiere educational psychologists of his day… In 1987, John went to Ball State University as Research Professor of Education and Director at the Burris Laboratory School. John’s accomplishments were so valued that he was posthumously awarded the 1990 Ball State University Outstanding Researcher of the Year. He will continue to influence educational psychologists and preservice teachers with his nearly 100 journal articles and [23] books, including the third edition of his undergraduate text [Educational Psychology: Principles and Applications], a recent graduate text titled Cognitive Psychology for Teachers, and Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology. (Benton, 1991, pp. 1-3)