This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Recent evidence suggests that grammatical aspect can bias how individuals perceive criminal intentionality during discourse comprehension. Given that criminal intentionality is a common criterion for legal definitions (e.g., first-degree murder), the present study explored whether grammatical aspect may also impact legal judgments. In a series of four experiments participants were provided with a legal definition and a description of a crime in which the grammatical aspect of provocation and murder events were manipulated. Participants were asked to make a decision (first- vs. second-degree murder) and then indicate factors that impacted their decision. Findings suggest that legal judgments can be affected by grammatical aspect but the most robust effects were limited to temporal dynamics (i.e., imperfective aspect results in more murder actions than perfective aspect), which may in turn influence other representational systems (i.e., number of murder actions positively predicts perceived intentionality). In addition, findings demonstrate that the influence of grammatical aspect on situation model construction and evaluation is dependent upon the larger linguistic and semantic context. Together, the results suggest grammatical aspect has indirect influences on legal judgments to the extent that variability in aspect changes the features of the situation model that align with criteria for making legal judgments.

Mental health clinicians have migrated to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and have reported their use of telehealth may be permanent. Understanding how stakeholders overcame hesitancy regarding the use of telehealth can potentially reveal how stakeholders can adopt future clinical technologies. The exposure therapy conceptual framework provides one explanation of how mental health clinicians can face their concerns about technologies that promise to improve clinical outcomes and worker well-being. We review available literature published since the start of the pandemic on the extent to which clinicians migrated to telehealth and their reactions to their transitions. In particular, we review available literature that describes negative attitudes and worries by clinicians as one of many barriers of telehealth implementation. We introduce the perspective that the necessary transition to telehealth at the start of the pandemic functioned as an exposure exercise that changed many clinicians’ cognitive and emotional reactions to the use of telehealth technologies. Next, we provide guidance on how clinicians can continue taking an exposure approach to learning emerging technologies that are safe and can benefit all stakeholders. Clinicians can now reflect on how they overcame hesitancy regarding telehealth during the pandemic and identify how to build on that new learning by applying strategies used in exposure therapy. The future of clinical work will increasingly require mental health clinicians to better serve their patient populations and enhance their own well-being by overcoming technophobia, a broad term for any level of hesitancy, reluctance, skepticism, worry, anxiety, or fear of implementing technology.