YOU ASKED?

No abstract available for this article.     

GOOD FOR YOU

Abstract: Theories of human well‐being struggle with a tension between opposing intuitions: on the one hand, that our welfare is subjectively determined by us as individuals, and on the other that there are objective constraints on what can count as our good. I argue that accounts driven primarily by subjectivist intuitions fail to come to grips with the signific‐ance of objectivist intuitions, by failing to explain where our objectivist intuitions come from and why they are important, and defend an alternative account of human welfare – what I call Aristotelian Constructivism.     

YOU ASKED?

No abstract available for this article.     

YOU ASKED?

No abstract available for this article.     

YOU ASKED?

No abstract available for this article.     

I CAN'T MAKE YOU WORSHIP ME

This paper argues that Divine Command Theory is inconsistent with the view, held by many theists, that we have a moral obligation to worship God.     

GETTING CREDIT FOR PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR:SUPERVISOR REACTIONS DEPEND ON WHAT YOU VALUE AND HOW YOU FEEL

Although proactive behavior is important in organizations, it is not always appreciated by supervisors. To explain when supervisors reward proactivity with higher overall performance evaluations, we draw on attribution theory. We propose that employees' values and affect send signals about their underlying intentions, which influence supervisors' attributions about whether employees deserve credit for proactive behaviors. More specifically, we hypothesize that if employees express strong prosocial values or low negative affect, the proactive behaviors of voice, issue-selling, taking charge, and anticipatory helping will have stronger relationships with supervisors' performance evaluations. We test these hypotheses with samples of 103 managers and their direct supervisors (Study 1) and 55 firefighters and their platoon supervisors (Study 2). The hypotheses were supported in both studies, suggesting that proactive behaviors are more likely to contribute to higher supervisor performance evaluations when employees express strong prosocial values or low negative affect.     

"IF YOU LET ME PLAY SPORTS"

This study tests a model specifying that girls' precollege participation in sporting activities will foster positive body images, enhanced perceptions of physical competence, and more flexible gender identities, which, in turn, predict higher college self-esteem. A sample of 220 college females (mean age = 19.65 years) provided retrospective reports of their precollege sport involvement and contemporaneous assessments of body image, perceived physical competencies, gender identity, global self-esteem, and other psychosocial variables. Consistent with prior reports on male and mixed-gender samples, greater precollege sport participation predicted higher self-esteem in this exclusively female sample. Follow-up path analyses and tests for mediation revealed that the model's intervening variables totally mediated the sport participation/self-esteem relationship. The patterning of these data implies that participating in sports promotes females' self-worth by fostering physical competencies, favorable body images, and gender flexibility, and, in the absence of any such psychosocial benefits, participation in sports has little salutary effect on and can even undermine self-esteem.     

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ‘HOW DO YOU KNOW?’ CHALLENGES A SPEAKER'S KNOWLEDGE?

It is often argued that the general propriety of challenging an assertion with ‘How do you know?’ counts as evidence for the Knowledge Norm of Assertion (KNA). Part of the argument is that this challenge seems to directly challenge whether a speaker knows what she asserts. In this article I argue for a re‐interpretation of the data, the upshot of which is that we need not interpret ‘How do you know?’ as directly challenging a speaker's knowledge; instead, it's better understood as challenging a speaker's reasons. Consequently, I argue that reasons‐based norms can equally well explain this data.     

"SOME THINGS YOU LEARN AREN'T SO":

When interpreting an interaction in the analysis of variance (ANOVA), many active researchers (and, in turn, students) often Ignore the residuals defining the interaction Although this problem has been noted previously, a appears that many users of ANOVA remain uncertain about the proper understanding of interaction effects To clear up this problem, we review the way in which the ANOVA model enables us to take apart a table of group means or the individual measurements contributing to the means to reveal the underlying components We also show how (using only published data) to compute a contrast on the question that may be of primary interest and illustrate for interpreting tables of residuals We conclude with an exercise to check on students understanding of ANOVA and to encourage increased precision in the specification of research results