Determining the impact of polygamous marriage on women and children worldwide can provide a better assessment than discrete primary studies. Identifying this impact can help give a clear understanding and serve as the basis for the development of appropriate strategies that address primary prevention to counter the potential negative impact affecting women and children. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to ascertain the psychological impact of polygamous marriage on women and children worldwide. We have included both women and children because the impact of polygamous marriage might affect both groups. This review summarizes the available evidence, effect estimates, and strength of the statistical associations between polygamous and monogamous marriages and the psychological impact on women, and children.
In this review, the psychological impact, including depression and anxiety, on women in polygamous marriages compared to monogamous marriages was evaluated. Only the pooled meta-analysis analysis for depression [34, 37, 40,41,42,43] showed a significant difference among women where it is 2.25 (95% CI: 1.20, 4.20) higher chance of experiencing depression in polygamous marriages compared to monogamous marriages. However, for psychological distress (OR 1.57 [95% CI: 0.60, 4.10]) [29, 39, 42] and anxiety (OR 1.20 [95% CI: 0.47,3.11]) [41,42,43] there were no significant difference between women in polygamous and monogamous marriages (Fig. 3). Panic disorder, too, did not show a significant difference (OR 4.05 [95% CI: 0.71, 23.13]). Sensitivity analysis was conducted in the anxiety data due to the wide range of confident intervals in Yilmaz [43]. The estimated OR changed to 0.88 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.40) with I2 of 0%.
The People vs Muhammad - Psychological Analysis books pdf file
In terms of the fundamental content of a social psyc text, it up to date--the relevant topics are covered . In many cases, so-called "classic studies" that are foundational to the field are featured. The classic study can be used as the base for discussing more recent research. The way that the text is arranged would make it easy to update. However, I did not see citations of research published within the last 10 years--it may be time for an update. In at least one instance, a 2001 meta-analysis was referred to as 'recent.' Whereas different people have different definitions of 'recent,' it is likely that college students will not see a study that was conducted the year they were born as 'recent.' The chapter on persuasion uses the Obama 2008 campaign as an opening example. More recent elections could be used.
The text is sorely lacking in the inclusion of transgender and non-binary people and relevant issues. I realize that most research compares men to women or discusses results with respect to men and women, but it is important to communicate to students that, in these instances, "we don't yet have substantial data on how a given theory would apply to non-binary people," or "we don't have sufficient research on how this process operates for transgender individuals." Of course, an effort must be made to include research on LGBTQIA+ people whenever possible, which had not been done here. Part of this is attributable to the textbook being a decade out of date, but even discussion of LGB people and issues is sporadic. As with most psychology texts, there is a clear bias toward a white, middle-class, able-bodies, heterosexual, Western set of mores and values. This may yet be an inescapable phenomenon for textbooks available in English, but this one really shows its age here. Unfortunately, I will not be using it purely on this basis.
On the whole, this text covers all of the topics one would expect to see within a social psychology textbook. However, the author has made some interesting choices that reflect his pedagogical goals and biases. For example, instead of including separate applications of social psychological principles in separate modules at the end of the text (what has become a common approach in the field), he has instead integrated applications (e.g., for health, law, the environment, clinical settings, etc.) within the chapters. On the one hand this is a good idea and allows students to see some possible applications of concepts as they learn them. On the other hand it results in chapters running a bit long and students encountering additional terms and information before they have had a chance to master the basics. The text includes some good pedagogical features, including learning objectives embedded within each module within each chapter, useful exercises at the end of each module, and a section within each chapter on social psychology in the public interest (applications of social psychological principles). For the most part the organization of chapters follows a fairly standard template starting with methods and going on to social cognition, the self, attitudes, social influence, attraction, prosocial behaviour, aggression, groups, and prejudice. However, an early focus on social learning (Chapter 2) and social affect (Chapter 3) is unusual in its prominence (most social psychology textbooks do not include a separate chapter on social affect). The text does not include a table of contents or an index, both of which are highly desirable.
The growth in social media use has given rise to concerns about the impacts it may have on users' psychological well-being. This paper's main objective is to shed light on the effect of social media use on psychological well-being. Building on contributions from various fields in the literature, it provides a more comprehensive study of the phenomenon by considering a set of mediators, including social capital types (i.e., bonding social capital and bridging social capital), social isolation, and smartphone addiction. The paper includes a quantitative study of 940 social media users from Mexico, using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hypotheses. The findings point to an overall positive indirect impact of social media usage on psychological well-being, mainly due to the positive effect of bonding and bridging social capital. The empirical model's explanatory power is 45.1%. This paper provides empirical evidence and robust statistical analysis that demonstrates both positive and negative effects coexist, helping to reconcile the inconsistencies found so far in the literature.
2ff7e9595c
Comentários