MBCT specifically modified to target neuroticism-related processes is a promising intervention for reducing neuroticism. Results support evidence suggesting neuroticism is malleable and amenable to psychological intervention. MBCT for neuroticism warrants further investigation in a larger study.

The ways in which people respond to stigma can have important consequences for health outcomes, yet there is no measure that assesses responses to stigma that can be used across groups stigmatized for different reasons. The aims of this study were to develop and psychometrically evaluate a new stigma responses questionnaire that can be used by individuals with different types of stigmatized characteristics: the Discrimination and Prejudice Responses Scale (DAPR). On the basis of qualitative interviews with 20 people with lived experience of stigma, 96 items were developed. A principal components analysis (n ϭ 966) identified 11 factors containing a total of 44 items: Preparation, Enjoyable Activity, Raise Awareness, Group Attachment, Rumination, Blame, Preparation, Self-Reliance, Avoidance, Distancing, and Secrecy. Each factor was found to have good reliability (␣ ϭ .67 to 0.94) and acceptability. Confirmatory factor analysis (n ϭ 592) confirmed the 11-factor model and provided validity for the measure. Each subscale of the DAPR was found to be significantly associated with related questionnaires in the expected directions, providing evidence for concurrent validity (n ϭ 546). One-week test-retest reliability (n ϭ 154) was examined, with weighted Cohen's kappa values ranging from 0.41-0.61 for each scale. Overall, the DAPR displayed sound psychometric properties with regard to factor structure, reliability, acceptability, and validity. In conclusion, the DAPR is a reliable and valid measure of responding to stigma, prejudice, and discrimination which can be used across a variety of marginalized groups.

This research explores whether environmental scientists perceive their male and female peers differently when making statements in the media including policy advocacy. Environmental scientists in the United Kingdom were provided with a media statement by a fictitious scientist containing a mixture of scientific information and advocacy, and asked to rate the statement against various attributes. Attributes were designed to represent stereotypes associated with male and female tendencies, and with science (impartial objectivity) and the media (dramatic narrative). The statements were randomly assigned to one of two male and two female scientists. Where the statements were attributed to a female scientist, male environmental scientists rated the fictitious scientist as significantly more ‘dramatic’ and ‘biased’ than their female counterparts did. These gendered attributes are typically held as contrary to the norms of science, suggesting an implicit bias among male scientists when reviewing their female peers’ media statements.