Larry C Bernard evaluates people for the effects of traumatic injury (sports injuries, concussion, motor vehicle accidents); vascular illnesses (strokes or aneurysm); metabolic illness (toxic exposures); physiological insult (hypoxia); infectious disease (encephalitis or HIV); neoplastic disease (brain tumor); educational and/or developmental disorders (ADHD, Learning Disabilities, Down Syndrome); and degenerative disorders in adults (multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s Disease). He helps clients, their families, and other professionals (attorneys, physicians) understand the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral consequences of these conditions.
He does comprehensive evaluations and produce detailed written reports to document clients' precise level of cognitive and psychological functioning and prognosis with treatment recommendations.
His goal is to help the client fully understand the extent of any impairment of cognitive functioning and its effects on their social and work life. Evidence from a neuropsychological evaluation can help people document their ability return to work in sensitive professions (aviation, medicine, police), demonstrate the effects of a personal injury to the brain.
University of Southern California: Ph.D., Psychology 1980
Areas of Expertise (2)
Industry Expertise (1)
- American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology
- American Psychological Association
Roy F. Baumeister’s 2014 presidential address to the Society for the Study of Motivation was a call to motivation scientists to address the lack of a grand theory of motivation and to encourage them to begin working on one. This commentary addresses some of the requirements of such a theory and discusses the relatively new action–trait theory of motivation as a viable candidate for such a grand theory of motivation. Action–trait theory is based on historic “purposive psychology” and incorporates the methods of individual differences psychology. It can be represented in eight falsifiable hypotheses, three of which have already received empirical support.
A relatively new theory of motivation posits that purposeful human behavior may be partly explained by multidimensional individual differences "traits of action" (motives). Its 15 motives can be characterized according to their purpose: individual integrity, competitiveness, and cooperativeness. Existing evidence supports the model on which the motives are based and the reliability and validity of strategies to assess them. This experiment tested whether the hypothetical results of consistent, motivated cooperative and competitive behavior could affect ratings of attractiveness. Male and female participants (N = 98; M age = 18.8, SD = 1.4) were shown 24 opposite-sex facial photos ranging in attractiveness. The photos were paired with one of three conditions representing theoretical outcomes that would result from low, control, and high levels of cooperative and competitive motives. As predicted, outcome descriptions representing high motive strength of six motives statistically significantly affected ratings of attractiveness. This result was independent of sex of participant and consistent with the theory.
The Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire (AIM-Q) was designed to assess 15 latent dimensions based on a relatively new evolutionary theory of human motivation. The present studies are the first to examine these dimensions using confirmatory factor analysis in an attempt to test the model proposed by the theory. Study 1 (N = 1,411) explored ways of producing a short version tapping the 15 dimensions. Fit indices suggested that a model consisting of 60 items tapping 15 weak to moderately correlated dimensions best described the data. Four alternative models that tested a completely orthogonal structure and a unidimensional structure were found to poorly represent the data. Study 2 (N = 490) successfully cross-validated the 60-item 15 dimension version using a different sample. These results support the multidimensional motivational theory on which the AIM-Q is based as well as the shorter version used to assess its dimensions.
Psychometric surveys suggest that sex differences in personality are minimal. Herein, we argue that (a) the mind is likely biased toward assessing oneself relative to same-sex others, and (b) this bias may affect the measurement of sex differences in personality. In support of this, an experiment demonstrates modulation of sex differences on the HEXACO facets by manipulating the sex of the “reference class”—the group of people subjects compare themselves to when making self-assessments on survey items. Although patterns varied across traits, sex differences were relatively small in the “unspecified” and “same-sex” reference class conditions—but substantially larger in the “opposite-sex” condition. These findings point to a same-sex comparison bias that may impact the measurement of sex differences in personality.