The objective study of self‐recognition, with a mirror and a mark applied to the face, was conducted independently by Gallup (1970) for use with chimpanzees and monkeys, and by Amsterdam (1972) for use with infant humans. Comparative psychologists have followed the model (and assumptions) set by Gallup, whereas developmental psychologists have followed a different model (e.g., Lewis & Brooks‐Gunn, 1979). This article explores the assumptions in the definitions and methods of self‐recognition assessments in the 30 years since these initial studies, and charts the divergence between the developmental mark test and the comparative mark test. Two new studies, 1 with infant chimpanzees and 1 with infant humans, illustrate a reconciliation of the 2 approaches. Overt application of the mark, or other procedures related to how the mark is discovered, did not enhance mirror self‐recognition. In contrast, maternal scaffolding appears to enhance performance, perhaps by eliciting well‐rehearsed verbal responses (i.e., naming self). When comparable testing procedures and assessment criteria are used, chimpanzee and human infants perform comparably. A combined developmental comparative approach allows us to suggest that mirror self‐recognition may be based on a specific aspect of mental representation, the cognitive ability to symbolize.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate whether maternal psychological stress and recent life events are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. A literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting miscarriage in women with and without history of exposure to psychological stress (the only exposure considered). The search produced 1978 studies; 8 studies were suitable for analysis. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with effect sizes weighted by the sampling variance. The risk of miscarriage was significantly higher in women with a history of exposure to psychological stress (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.19–1.70). These findings remained after controlling for study type (cohort and nested case-control study OR 1.33 95% CI 1.14–1.54), exposure types (work stress OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10–1.47), types of controls included (live birth OR 2.82 95% CI: 1.64–4.86). We found no evidence that publication bias or study heterogeneity significantly influenced the results. Our finding provides the most robust evidence to date, that prior psychological stress is harmful to women in early pregnancy.

No abstract

Previous research has indicated that 70-85% of women and girls show a bias to hold infants, or dolls, to the left side of their body. This bias is not matched in males (e.g. deChateau, Holmberg & Winberg, 1978; Todd, 1995). This study tests an explanation of cradling preferences in terms of hemispheric specialization for the perception of facial emotional expression. Thirty-two right-handed participants were given a behavioural test of lateralization and a cradling task. Females, but not males, who cradled a doll on the left side were found to have significantly higher laterality quotients than right cradlers. Results indicate that women cradle on the side of the body that is contralateral to the hemisphere dominant for face and emotion processing and suggest a possible explanation of gender differences in the incidence of cradling.

Objective: The number of individuals seeking refuge and safety in European and Western host-societies has increased in recent years and there is no evidence to suggest that this trend will reverse in the foreseeable future. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and youth are particularly vulnerable to risk. The detrimental influence of political conflicts, war and forced migration on asylum-seeking individuals' mental health is well-documented; however, the stressors encountered after arrival to the host-country have been investigated less frequently. This study explored how a group of six male refugees from Afghanistan experienced arriving to the Swedish host-society as unaccompanied minors, and how they perceived the support available to them. Methods: Based on individual semi-structured interviews, an interpretative phenomenological analysis was carried out to explore the perceived risks and protective factors during the first months and years in the host-society. Results: The qualitative findings draw attention to the crucial importance of clarifying the complex asylum-seeking process, the protective influence of social support, the importance of educational guidance, and participant's strong desire to fit in and move forward with their lives. Conclusion: The resulting information can inform the practice of supporting asylum-seeking youths' adaptation in host-societies and in developing assessment measures and interventions for these groups. Specifically, the results indicate the protective role of social support and highlight the potential value of mentoring schemes.