Search results

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of a novel offender personality disorder (OPD) higher education programme and the research evaluation results collected over a three-year period. Data from Phase 1 was collected from a face-to-face mode of delivery, and Phase 2 data collected from the same programme was from an online mode of delivery because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Phase 1, three modules were developed and delivered in a fully face-to-face format before the pandemic in 2019–2020 (n = 52 student participants). In 2020–2021 (n = 66 student participants), training was adapted into a fully online mode of delivery in Phase 2. This mixed-methods study evaluated participant confidence and compassion. Pre-, post- and six-month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Qualitative interviews were conducted across both phases to gain in-depth feedback on this programme (Phase 1: N = 7 students, Phase 2: N = 2 students, N = 5 leaders). Data from Phase 1 (face-to-face) and Phase 2 (online) are synthesised for comparison.

In Phase 1 (N = 52), confidence in working with people with personality disorder or associated difficulties improved significantly, while compassion did not change. In Phase 2 (N = 66), these results were replicated, with statistically significant improvements in confidence reported. Compassion, however, was reduced in Phase 2 at the six-month follow-up. Results have been integrated and have assisted in shaping the future of modules to meet the learning needs of students.

Further research into the impact of different modes of delivery is important for the future of education in a post-pandemic digitalised society. Comparisons of blended learning approaches were not covered but would be beneficial to explore and evaluate in the future.

This comparison provided informed learning for consideration in the development of non-related educational programmes and, hence, was of use to other educational providers.

This paper provides a comparison of a student-evaluated training programme, thus providing insights into the impact of delivering a relational-focused training programme in both face-to-face and online distance learning delivery modes. From this pedagogic research evaluation, the authors were able to derive unique insights into the outcomes of this programme.

We examine how authorities' use of fair decision-making procedures and power benevolently shape workers' impressions of them as competent and warm, which serve as a mechanism whereby authorities' behaviors shape workers' emotional responses. We investigate how the role of these impressions differs depending on authority gender and consider whether emotional responses differ for male and female subordinates.

We conducted a between-subjects experimental vignette study in which we manipulate an authority's behaviors and gender. We use multigroup mediation analysis to test our predictions.

Authorities who employ procedural justice and benevolent power elicit reports of heightened positive emotion experiences and intended displays and reports of reduced negative emotion experiences and intended displays. These behaviors also enhance views of authorities as competent and warm. The mediating role of impressions differs by authority gender. Authority behaviors prompt reports of positive emotions through conveying impressions that align with authorities' gender stereotypes (competence for men, warmth for women). In contrast, warmth impressions mediate effects of behaviors on reported negative emotions when authorities are men, whereas when authorities are women, benevolent power use directly reduces reported negative experience, and procedural justice reduces negative display. Female respondents are more likely to report positive emotion experience and display toward male authorities and negative display toward female authorities.

By examining competence and warmth impressions as mechanisms, we gain insight into how the process by which authority behaviors affect worker emotions is gendered and shed light on micro-level dynamics contributing to gender inequality at work.