Faculty Bibliography

Previous research has examined how mood affects individuals"™ judgment. Our study aims to extend this research to evaluate the influence of mood on judgment in vivo. Using a smartphone-based design, we prompted participants (N = 103) three times a day to rate their mood and perform one of three judgment tasks three times a day for one week: (1) evaluate their self-efficacy on a word unscrambling task, (2) identify face emotions, or (3) judge risk by pumping virtual balloons. Our results showed that, contrary to our hypotheses, mood did not have a significant effect on the judgments individuals made. Prior task performance and task trial were significant predictors of self-efficacy; sex and task trial were associated with face emotion recognition; and balloons popped the day prior, and task trial influenced how individuals evaluated risk. The in vivo design of this study is a novel and more ecologically valid than some earlier work, but it is not without limitations, including the self-reported nature of mood, and potential for unmeasured third variable effects. This research raises questions about the validity of lab-based studies of the relation between mood and judgment, and shows the capacity of in vivo research and technology to challenge and enhance our understanding of how mood influences behavior.

This pilot study integrated quantitative and qualitative data to examine the feasibility of implementing a modified version of a multiple family group behavioral parent training intervention (The 4Rs and 2Ss for Strengthening Families Program [4Rs and 2Ss]) in child welfare (CW) placement prevention services from the perspectives of participating caregivers (n = 12) and CW staff (n = 12; i.e., 6 caseworkers, 4 supervisors, and 2 administrators). Quantitative surveys were administered to caregivers and CW staff followed by semi-structured interviews to examine the feasibility of implementing the modified 4Rs and 2Ss program as well as factors impacting feasibility. Results indicated that quantitative benchmarks for high feasibility were met in all assessed areas (e.g., family recruitment, caseworker fidelity ratings, CW staff feasibility ratings) except for family attendance, which was markedly lower than desired. Factors facilitating feasibility included agency and research support, intervention ease-of-use, perceived benefits to existing CW practice, and logistical support (e.g., food, transportation, child care) promoting attendance. Factors hindering feasibility included conflicts between research-based eligibility criteria and existing client population demographics, research-related processes resulting in delays, CW staff role conflicts, added workload burden, complex family issues, and power differentials inherent to CW services which complicated families"™ voluntary participation.