Do mental health professionals in England know about and document clients'traumas and adversities, and do they respond therapeutically?

In three experimental studies, we investigated the effect of the content of group-directed feedback on categorization of the feedback source as an ingroup or an outgroup member. In all studies, feedback valence (criticism vs. praise) and the attributional content of feedback (attributing outcomes to internal properties of the group vs. external circumstances) were experimentally manipulated. The results demonstrated that anonymous (Study 1) and ambiguous (Studies 2 and 3) sources of feedback are more likely to be seen as (typical) ingroup members when they provide praise rather than criticism. In addition, in all studies there was a significant interaction between valence and the attributional content of feedback, such that sources of praise were more likely to be seen as ingroup members when they attributed the group's success to internal (rather than external) causes, while the opposite was observed for critics. These effects were mediated by perceived group image threat. Implications for research on group-based feedback and social categorization are discussed.Imagine reading through online comments on a newspaper article and coming across one that heavily criticizes the political party that you support. You do not know anything about the person who posted this comment, but you will probably not hesitate to draw some conclusions about their political affiliation. In fact, most of us would be likely to make such a conclusion straight away, and to consider the content of the comment through the prism of this inferred group membership. Similar processes are at play when authors receive anonymous reviews of their research. When receiving generally positive feedback about one's work, one often jumps to conclusions about the reviewer's likely affiliation to a particular shared school of thought. As most authors would also know, such attributions lay the ground for easy discounting of critical feedback.In fact, in many instances of receiving feedback (either critical or flattering), we do not have much information about the people who provide such feedback but nonetheless make quick inferences about them. Given that information about the group membership of a feedback provider, when available, has been shown to have substantial effects on responses to feedback (Hornsey, 2005), it would seem important to also understand how such information is inferred when not provided explicitly. This research addresses this question by exploring the effect of feedback content on inferences made about either anonymous or ambiguously characterized feedback sources. In particular, we focus on

No abstract