The relationship of compliance with anxiety,self-esteem,paranoid thinking and anger

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the relationship of compliance with anxiety, self-esteem, paranoid thinking, and anger. The Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (GCS), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Paranoia/Suspiciousness Questionnaire (PSQ), and the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS) were administered to 167 University students Compliance correlated positively with state and trait anxiety, low self-esteem, paranoia and suspiciousness, and negatively with acting out feelings of anger (the Behavioural Domain of the NAS). Multiple regression of the test scores showed that paranoid thinking was the single best predictor of compliance. The implications are discussed. It is important to replicate the study on special populations, such as offenders and psychiatric patients, who have problems with low self-esteem, paranoid thinking, and anger.     

Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals

Assessment of competency for execution presents two compelling ethical questions for mental health professionals: whether clinicians can ethically provide such assessment, and if so, how it should be done in order to maximize quality and minimize ethical conflict. In this article we address the issue of whether to participate and, if so, how. The question of whether to participate is discussed by summarizing the arguments for and against participation and offering guidelines for making a decision. The question of how to proceed is discussed in two contexts: preadjudication (before a formal decision about competency) and postadjudication (following a determination of "incompetent" and transfer of the offender to another facility for treatment and further assessment). Finally, recommendations are made regarding research that would improve the quality of execution competency assessments.     

Achievements and Significance of China's Human Rights Activities in the World

Toward the end of the 1970s, the United States began to implement its human rights (HR) diplomacy, trying to export its ideology by exercising hegemony as part of the cold war. Under its influence, some other western countries also introduced