The present article provides a detailed comparison of two psychological phenomena, the freezing effect and the bystander effect, across their neurobiological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. This study focuses on identifying and analyzing the similarities and differences between these two responses to stressful and traumatic events. While the freezing effect is characterized by an involuntary neurobiological response to immediate threats, resulting in temporary immobilization or paralysis, the bystander effect describes a cognitive and social phenomenon where individuals refrain from offering help in emergencies when others are present. The study explores affective aspects, including emotional responses and trauma-related impacts associated with both phenomena. Through a comparative analysis, this research unveils important understandings regarding the distinctions among these responses, including their triggers, underlying mechanisms, and observable behaviors. It also highlights overlapping aspects, particularly in how both phenomena can lead to inaction in critical moments. This comparative study contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex interaction between the brain, individual cognition, and social dynamics in the face of danger and stress. The findings of this research have significant implications for understanding human behavior in emergencies, offering valuable perspectives that can be applied in the domains of psychology, training for emergency response, and trauma therapy.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential of digital tools in clinical neuropsychology, prompting a shift from traditional paper-based assessments to digital alternatives. However, research on this topic remains limited. This study evaluates the usability of digital neuropsychological assessment tools and examines healthcare professionals’ perceptions of their reliability and efficiency in clinical settings. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the Centro Neurolesi “Bonino-Pulejo.” Healthcare professionals, including neuropsychologists and clinicians, were asked to alternate between digital and traditional paper-based assessments. The usability of the digital tools was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS), while qualitative feedback was gathered through open-ended questions. Results: A panel of 29 healthcare professionals participated in the study. The quantitative analysis of the SUS scores revealed a mean score of 89.48 ( SD = 10.12) for the digital format and 81.38 ( SD = 11.49) for the traditional format. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistically significant difference between the two conditions ( p = 0.0003), indicating that participants found the digital tools to be more usable compared to the traditional assessment format. Key qualitative feedback indicated that participants appreciated the speed, efficiency, and reduced error rates of digital tools, with many noting improvements in data organization and reporting. Conclusions: Although the study's single-center design, small sample size, and reliance on self-reported measures may limit the generalizability of the findings, the results underscore the high usability and effectiveness of digital neuropsychological assessments. Healthcare professionals reported improved efficiency, accuracy, and data organization, supporting the tool's potential integration into clinical practice. These findings underscore the promise of digital tools in modern neuropsychology, paving the way for future multicentric and longitudinal research to validate their broader applicability.

Currently, there are no validated instruments in Italian specifically designed to assess mental illness stigma or prejudice. Moreover, implicit measures, while insightful, are often resource-intensive and impractical for large-scale population studies of Italian speakers. The present study investigated the validity of the Italian version of the Prejudice towards People with Mental Illness scale (PPMI-IT) in measuring biases toward individuals with mental health issues. The original instrument by Kenny et al. was translated from English into Italian and vice versa. A sample of 455 Italian-speaking participants (65% female; M_age = 33.39; SD = 13.21) was utilized to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, confirming a four-factor structure (fear/avoidance, malevolence, authoritarianism, unpredictability). Factor loadings indicated that each dimension was well represented, supporting the construct validity of the scale. Model fit indices, including chi-square (χ² = 782.54, df = 296.00, χ²/df = 2.64), RMSEA (0.06, 90% CI: 0.060–0.07), CFI (0.93), TLI (0.91), and SRMR (0.06), suggest an excellent model fit. Furthermore, the analysis of correlations and the heterotrait/monotrait (HTMT) ratio provides evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the PPMI scale compared with social desirability. These findings confirm that the PPMI scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing biases toward individuals with mental health issues, making it suitable for academic research, clinical interventions, and public policy contexts.

Assaults against teachers represent a growing phenomenon that raises concerns about the safety and well-being of school personnel. This study analyzed episodes of violence reported in major Italian newspapers, collecting data on cases of physical, verbal, and psychological assaults that occurred within school institutions. Through a systematic search, 25 episodes were identified and classified based on the type of aggressor (students, parents, or family members), the motivation behind the assault (disciplinary actions, negative evaluations, school-related measures), and the consequences for the parties involved. The findings highlight that disciplinary actions are the most common triggering factor, while the involvement of parents and family members in the assaults reflects a shift in the school-family relationship. The analysis also reveals an increase in incidents following the pandemic, along with greater difficulties in managing conflicts within the school environment. However, the study presents some limitations, including its reliance on journalistic sources, which may not report all episodes of violence, and the lack of in-depth data on the social and psychological context of the aggressors. These findings underline the need for effective prevention strategies and increased support for teachers in order to ensure a safer and more respectful school environment.

The present study investigated the validity of the Italian version of the Prejudice towards People with Mental Illness scale (PPMI-IT) in measuring biases toward individuals with mental health issues. The original instrument was translated and back translated from english into italian. A sample of 455 italian-speaking participants (65% female; Mage= 33.39; SD=13.21) was utilized to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, confirming a four-factor structure (Fear - Avoidance, Malevolence, Authoritarianism, Unpredictability). Factor loadings indicated that each dimension was well represented, supporting the construct validity of the scale. Model fit indices, including Chi-Square (χ² = 782.54, df = 296.00, χ²/df = 2.64), RMSEA (0.06, 90% CI: 0.060–0.07), CFI (0.93), TLI (0.91), and SRMR (0.06), suggest an excellent model fit. Furthermore, the analysis of correlations and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio provides evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the PPMI scale from Social Desirability. These findings confirm that the PPMI scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing biases toward individuals with mental health issues, making it suitable for academic research, clinical interventions, and public policy contexts.

This study examines the links between hyperarousal, personality traits, and anxiety sensitivity using the H-scale, Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), and Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3). A total of 1,118 Italian adults (534 males, 584 females; M = 35.61, SD = 12.47) participated. Pearson correlations and network analysis revealed significant negative associations between introspection and reactivity (H-scale) and emotion control, impulse control, and emotional stability (BFQ). This suggests that individuals with higher introspection and reactivity may have more difficulty regulating emotions and maintaining stability. Additionally, reactivity showed negative correlations with dynamism, dominance, and extroversion, indicating lower engagement, assertiveness, and vitality. Graphical network visualization illustrated a model linking hyperarousal, personality traits, and anxiety vulnerability. These findings highlight how heightened introspection and reactivity are related to poor emotional regulation and increased anxiety risk, suggesting the need for targeted psychological interventions.