Nearly all the contextual barriers to behaviour change identified above are likely to: obscure the potential negative outcomes of risky sexual behaviour; undermine intentions or goals to avoid such behaviour; undermine self-efficacy or perceived control to do so; and create or reinforce norms that encourage risk behaviours.
Thus when thinking about an uncertain future event, worry-prone individuals tend to make relatively threatening interpretations and direct their attention to potential negative outcomes, whereas others are likely to interpret the same situation in a more benign manner and be less likely to attend to negative outcomes.
If we do not act, the children in care with FASD will likely not have their needs adequately addressed, and thus, will likely experience negative outcomes, such as secondary disabilities, that will not only impact the individual, themselves, well into adulthood, but also the society in which they live (Bueller et al. 2000; Quinton et al. 1984).
This was the finding of a recent study by a group of female academics at Harvard Business School, which found that women have more overall life goals than men, but are less likely to strive for powerful jobs, and are more likely to anticipate negative outcomes from potential promotion.
But children who had been psychologically abused were more likely to have negative outcomes over the long-term than victims of physical or sexual abuse.
Similarly, it is these vulnerable children who are most likely to experience negative outcomes of online social interactions.
In addition, compared to those of optimal weight, obese women were more likely to have negative outcomes.
Although the effects of divorce and separation can be detrimental, research indicates that high relationship discord in intact couples is also likely to have negative outcomes.
Understanding how predictions of future life events are altered is critical for understanding human action and decision making, which is largely driven by predictions of likely negative and positive outcomes [ 33 35].
Publication bias was not formally assessed, but may have influenced the review findings because malaria programs are less likely to publish studies with negative outcomes and more likely to downplay adverse events.
