Giant cell reparative granuloma is a benign lesion occurring most commonly in the bones of the jaw and rarely in the paranasal sinuses. We present an unusual case of giant cell reparative granuloma arising within a concha bullosa. Complete excision was achieved using an endoscopic transnasal approach.
We examined the effect of two des-Met-bombesin analogues, [(CH3)2CHCO-His-Trp-Ala-Val-d-Ala-His-Leu-NHCH3] (ICI 216140) and [d-Phe6,des-Met14]bombesin(6–14) ethylamide (DPDM-bombesin ethylamide), on neuromedin B-induced Ca2+ and [3H]arachidonate release in BALB 3T3 cells transfected with human neuromedin B receptors. ICI 216140 and DPDM-bombesin ethylamide both stimulated Ca2+ mobilisation in a concentration-dependent manner but were less potent and efficacious than neuromedin B. BIM 23042 [d-Nal-Cys-Tyr-d-Trp-Lys-Val-Cys-Nal-NH2], a selective neuromedin B antagonist and [d-Arg1,d-Phe5,d-Trp7.9,Leu11]substance P, a broad-spectrum peptide receptor antagonist inhibited neuromedin B-, ICI 216140- and DPDM-bombesin ethylamide-induced Ca2+ release. Pretreatment of cells with either des-Met-bombesin analogue attenuated neuromedin B-induced Ca2+ elevations, suggesting similar agonist-sensitive Ca2+ pools. The pharmacological profiles revealed from the [3H]arachidonate assay were similar, although ICI 216140 was less potent and efficacious than DPDM-bombesin ethylamide. The data suggest that ICI 216140 and DPDM-bombesin ethylamide behave as agonists at the neuromedin B receptor, perhaps as a consequence of neuromedin B receptor overexpression.
Supervisor ratings of employees' motivation and adjustment in psychiatric rehabilitation settings are among the best predictors of future work potential (Anthony & Jansen, 1984). Additionally, some research reports low correlations between supervisor ratings and employee self-reports with regard to adjustment and motivation. Consequently, we examine (a) how current program participation and estimates of readiness for competitive employment relate to employee and supervisor ratings of motivation; and (b) the correlates of rating discrepancies between employees and supervisors. Program participation and work-readiness were associated with both employee and supervisor ratings of motivation after controlling for employee benefit plan, residential status, and social adjustment. Additionally, the degree of supervisor-employee discrepancy in these ratings was negatively correlated with program participation, work- readiness, and estimates of premorbid social competence. The role of motivational factors in vocational rehabilitation and the dynamics of supervisor and employee perceptions of work motivation and adjustment are discussed.
Pro‐social behaviors have been associated with enhanced well‐being, but what psychological mechanisms explain this connection? Some theories suggest that beneficence—the sense of being able to give—inherently improves well‐being, whereas evidence from self‐determination theory (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010) shows that increases in well‐being are mediated by satisfaction of innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Here we simultaneously assess these two explanations. Study 1 ( N = 335) used a cross‐sectional survey with an Internet sample to develop a measure to assess beneficence satisfaction. The next two cross‐sectional Internet‐sample studies tested mediators between pro‐social behavior and general well‐being (Study 2, N = 332) and situational peak moment well‐being (Study 3, N = 180). A fourth study ( N = 85) used a diary method with university students to assess daily fluctuations in well‐being associated with needs and beneficence. It was shown across all studies that both the three psychological needs and beneficence satisfaction mediate the relations between pro‐social actions and well‐being, with all four factors emerging as independent predictors. Together, these studies underscore the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in explaining the well‐being benefits of benevolence, and they also point to the independent role of beneficence as a source of human wellness.
No abstract is provided for this article.
ABSTRACT Self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) posits that ( a ) people are inherently motivated to internalize the regulation of uninteresting though important activities; ( b ) there are two different processes through which such internalization can occur, resulting in qualitatively different styles of self‐regulation; and ( c ) the social context influences which internalization process and regulatory style occur. The two types of internalization are introjection , which entails taking in a value or regulatory process but not accepting it as one's own, and integration , through which the regulation is assimilated with one's core sense of self. Introjection results in internally controlling regulation, whereas integration results in self‐determination. An experiment supported our hypothesis that three facilitating contextual factors—namely, providing a meaningful rationale, acknowledging the behaver's feelings, and conveying choice—promote internalization, as evidenced by the subsequent self‐regulation of behavior. This experiment also supported our expectation that when the social context supports self‐determination, integration tends to occur, whereas when the context does not support self‐determination, introjection tends to occur.
Abstract Cognitive evaluation theory, which explains the effects of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation, received some initial attention in the organizational literature. However, the simple dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation made the theory difficult to apply to work settings. Differentiating extrinsic motivation into types that differ in their degree of autonomy led to self‐determination theory, which has received widespread attention in the education, health care, and sport domains. This article describes self‐determination theory as a theory of work motivation and shows its relevance to theories of organizational behavior. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Competition is an apt place to experience intrinsic motivation, as competitive settings are often rich with optimal challenges and immediate, effectance-relevant feedback. Yet competition can also undermine intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement by introducing controlling pressures and negative feedback. To explain the contrasting effects of competitive settings on intrinsic motivation, this chapter presents a self-determination theory analysis. According to the theory, when elements of competitive settings are experienced as controlling or pressuring, they undermine competitors’ autonomy, decreasing intrinsic motivation. However, when these elements are perceived as both non-controlling and competence-informing, they can satisfy both autonomy and competence needs, enhancing intrinsic motivation. Unpacking these motivational crosscurrents, the authors identify the motivational implications of different elements of competition, including competitive set, pressure to win, feedback and competitive outcomes, challenge, leaders’ motivating styles, team interpersonal climate, and intrapersonal events such as ego-involvement. The authors also examine both positive and negative effects of competition on the need for relatedness. The chapter concludes by discussing how conditions that foster the need-satisfying aspects of competition not only enhance intrinsic motivation but also help prevent the emergence of competition’s darker sides, such as cheating, doping, objectifying opponents, aggression, and poor sportspersonship.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Despite many recent technical breakthroughs in health care, human behaviour remains the largest source of variance in health-related outcomes (Schroeder, 2007). People’s health and well-being are robustly affected by lifestyle factors such as smoking, hygiene, diet, and physical activity, all of which involve behaviours that are potentially controllable by the individual. In addition, outside of acute care settings, the effectiveness of most health care interventions is highly dependent on the patient’s adherence to self-care activities such as taking medications, performing self-examinations, or refraining from specific activities or habits. A significant problem is the poor adherence to prescribed changes or recommended behaviours over time.
