There is a substantial amount of literature that suggests that animals, and specifically animals kept as pets, can have a positive effect on wellbeing. Research exploring the impact of animals on wellbeing in care homes mainly concerns visiting animals as well as shared communal pets. In light of the lack of research regarding personal pets in care homes, the aim of this study was to explore what the experience of keeping a personal pet in a care home means for residents’ sense of wellbeing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven care home residents who were currently living with their pet in a care home. Interviews were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Analysis revealed four master themes deemed to be relevant to participants’ wellbeing. these were: ‘sense of self and identity’, ‘responsibility and ownership’, ‘motivation and desire to live’ and ‘feeling content in the care home’. The analysis indicated that living with a personal pet in a care home has the potential to enhance residents’ wellbeing. At the same time, it also found that the benefits of keeping a personal pet may be dependent on specific circumstances, such as the attitudes of staff and fellow residents at the care home. This study indicates that it may be advisable for more care homes to accept personal pets.
Guided by gaps in the literature with regard to the study of politicians the aim of the research is to explore cross-cultural differences in political leaders’ style. It compares the MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004) scores of elected political leaders (N = 140) in Bulgaria and the UK. The statistical exploration of the data relied on multivariate analyses of covariance. The findings of comparisons across the two groups reveal that compared to British political leaders, Bulgarian leaders were more likely to frequently use both transactional and passive/avoidant behaviours. The study tests Bass’s (1997) strong assertion about the universality of transformational leadership. It contributes to the leadership literature by providing directly measured data relating to the behaviours of political leaders. Such information on the characteristics of politicians could allow for more directional hypotheses in subsequent research, exploring the contextual influences within transformational leadership theory. The outcomes might also aid applied fields. Knowledge gained of culturally different leaders could be welcomed by multicultural political and economic unions, wherein understanding and allowances might aid communication.
This book, written by an independent scholar, holds an alternative view to the one claiming that democratization brings about turmoil in ethnically divided societies. It uses Bulgaria and Macedonia as case studies to show that, in fact, democratization can sometimes aid the presence of peace. Divided into six chapters, the book starts by giving an excellent description of terms such as democratization while underlining the stages taken by countries to reach a consolidated democracy-useful for anyone interested in the psychology of democratization. It suggests why an experience of liberalism aids democratization, and addresses the difficulties encountered by countries attempting transition from communism to democracy.Indeed, chapter 2 claims a positive relation between democratization and peace. Unlike others, Engstro ¨m argues that a regime transition of any kind would bring about instability. According to her, it was the breakdown of communism, rather than the arrival of democracy, that caused violence in Eastern Europe, as it is issues born within the politics of previous, rather than subsequent, regimes that bring about aggression. The argument also
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.