Sex differences in the assignment of responsibility for an accident

Two experiments examined the proposition that females assign less responsibility than males to a perpetrator in a feminine occupation and males assign less responsibility than females to a perpetrator in a masculine occupation. The results from Experiment 1 indicated that females assigned less responsibility than males to a perpetrator in a feminine occupation, whereas males and females assigned equal responsibility to a perpetrator in a masculine occupation. These results did not generalize to measures of causality, foreseeability, intent, or justification. Therefore, they suggest that responsibility may have been assigned on the basis of reliability of the perpetrator's behavior and that a measure of reliability may be more appropriate than a measure of responsibility. The results from Experiment 2 supported the contention. Females judged the behavior of a perpetrator in a feminine occupation to be more reliable than did males, and males judged the behavior of a perpetrator in a masculine occupation to be more reliable than did females.     

The dimensionality of attributions of causality and responsibility for an accident

Effects of the dimensionality of responsibility and causality attributions were investigated. An accident was described. Subjects cued to respond with causality attributions increased their attributions with event severity. Subjects cued to respond with moral responsibility attributions decreased attributional levels with increasing severity. Assignments of guilt varied specifically with the cued attributional concept.     

The devil is in the details: Judgments of responsibility and absenteeism from work

This paper presents and tests a model suggesting that individual episodes of absenteeism, and the circumstances surrounding these events, are an important avenue for research and can help us understand the outcomes related to this behaviour. Through an experimental design using vignettes describing the absence of a co‐worker, this paper tests how reason for absence and context (i.e., work demands related to deadlines) surrounding an episode influences judgments of responsibility, emotional reactions, and behavioural intentions. The findings indicate that reasons for absence and context are important determinants of the reactions of others following an absence episode.     

Relational Judgments in an Influence Context

We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.     

Dimensional Structure of Judgments of Crimes1

This research explored the correlates and dimensionality of judgments of crimes varying widely in seriousness, and the structure of their mental representation. In Experiment 1, 27 crimes were judged independently along 12 scales. A principal-factors analysis of interscale correlations yielded a major factor of evaluation, best defined by scales of seriousness, moral wrongfulness, and severity of deserved punishment. Judgments concerning perceptions of probability of conviction, punishment given, likelihood of physical harm, offender dangerousness, and degree of understanding also loaded on the evaluation factor. The second factor was Frequency of Occurrence. The results were generally stable at the local levels of person crimes and nonperson crimes. In Experiment 2 crime stimuli were subjected to pairwise similarity judgments that were analyzed using the Kruskal-Shepard MDSCAL and Sattath-Tversky ADDTREE procedures. MDSCAL yielded an interpretable two-dimensional representation and permitted approximate recovery of the seriousness ordering of crimes. The ADDTREE solution yielded two major partitionings, of person versus nonperson crimes, and several psychologically significant nested subsets clustered within each partition. The two psychometric outcomes were congruent. The overall results confirm a primary dimension of evaluation/seriousness. Implications for research in criminology and the comparative merits of similarity judgments versus single-scale seriousness ratings of crimes are discussed.     

Judgments about moral responsibility and determinism in patients with behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia: still compatibilists

Do laypeople think that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism? Recently, philosophers and psychologists trying to answer this question have found contradictory results: while some experiments reveal people to have compatibilist intuitions, others suggest that people could in fact be incompatibilist. To account for this contradictory answers, Nichols and Knobe (2007) have advanced a ‘performance error model’ according to which people are genuine incompatibilist that are sometimes biased to give compatibilist answers by emotional reactions. To test for this hypothesis, we investigated intuitions about determinism and moral responsibility in patients suffering from behavioural frontotemporal dementia. Patients suffering from bvFTD have impoverished emotional reaction. Thus, the ‘performance error model’ should predict that bvFTD patients will give less compatibilist answers. However, we found that bvFTD patients give answers quite similar to subjects in control group and were mostly compatibilist. Thus, we conclude that the ‘performance error model’ should be abandoned in favour of other available model that best fit our data.     

College Students' Judgments of Verbal Sexual Harassment1

Most studies of sexual harassment focus on physical coercion or pressure for sexual favors. This research attempts to outline the factors involved in verbal sexual harassment, which is conceived of as a speech act similar to taboo language, with conversational “rules” and semantic categories that differentiate it from merely inappropriate language. One hundred thirty-seven college students rated 37 sexual remarks for degrees of sexual harassment and inappropriateness. Total harassment scores correlated with total appropriateness scores at r = .68; although harassment ratings were high, remarks were judged more inappropriate than harassing. Five harassment factors and six appropriateness factors emerged. Women rated harassment factors of euphemisms and obscenity as significantly more harassing, and appropriateness factors of objectification, belittling competency, and name calling as more inappropriate. We conclude that men, who are less likely to be targets of harassment, are more used to taboo language and “naming” games, and are reluctant to admit to harassment, even when remarks are deemed inappropriate. Practical implications for defining verbal sexual harassment are discussed.     

Taking responsibility for health in an epistemically polluted environment

Proposals for regulating or nudging healthy choices are controversial. Opponents often argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own health, rather than be paternalistically manipulated for their own good. In this paper, I argue that people can take responsibility for their own health only if they satisfy certain epistemic conditions, but we live in an epistemic environment in which these conditions are not satisfied. Satisfying the epistemic conditions for taking responsibility, I argue, requires regulation of this environment. I describe some proposals for such regulation and show that we cannot reject all regulation in the name of individual responsibility. We must either regulate individuals’ healthy choices or regulate the epistemic environment.     

学习判断的练习伴随低估效应

学习判断是元认知判断的一种重要形式,是个体对随后的记忆成绩的预测。当个体在多次学习－测验任务中学习词对时,学习判断出现了练习伴随低估效应。研究者对此进行了大量的实验并提出了多种理论,如线索应用模型,提取流畅性假说和基点－校正假说。但是,Koriat等人通过分析发现练习伴随低估效应可能不是单一因素作用的结果,而是多种效应共同影响作用的表现,并由此提出了记忆去偏差假说。文章指出了目前研究中还存在的问题以及未来研究的方向     

Racial Categorization and Stereotype-Based Judgments About Homeless People1

The present study uses a social-cognitive paradigm to examine the association between racial categorization and stereotype-based judgments about homeless people. The study uses data from a national White subsample (N= 1,221) surveyed about attitudes toward homeless/homeless mentally ill people. It was hypothesized that individual differences in perceptions of the representativeness of Blacks in the homeless population, as measured by subjective estimates of the percentage of Blacks, would be associated with the enhancement of racially relevant negative stereotypes about homeless people. A secondary hypothesis was that perceptions of the representativeness of Blacks would be more strongly associated with the stereotype of homeless people as dangerous than with the view of them as lazy. The results support these hypotheses.     

The Impact of Perceived Justice on Contingent Value Judgments1

We asked citizens suffering from road traffic about their willingness to pay for the building of a new road bypassing their home village. Opponents of the project were asked what they would consider adequate compensation for accepting the bypass. The perceived fairness of a monetary exchange was the only predictor for the decision in principle to pay or to claim compensation, whereas the exact amount was determined by the expected utility provided by the bypass. Norms of equity or equality introduced in 2 experimental priming conditions biased respondents' willingness to pay. We suggest feeding back the results of contingent valuation surveys into the public debate, instead of interpreting them as a static measure of economic preferences.     

Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1

The ``doctrinal paradox'' or ``discursive dilemma'' shows that propositionwise majority voting over the judgments held by multiple individuals on some interconnected propositions can lead to inconsistent collective judgments on these propositions. List and Pettit (2002) have proved that this paradox illustrates a more general impossibility theorem showing that there exists no aggregation procedure that generally produces consistent collective judgments and satisfies certain minimal conditions. Although the paradox and the theorem concern the aggregation of judgments rather than preferences, they invite comparison with two established results on the aggregation of preferences: the Condorcet paradox and Arrow's impossibility theorem. We may ask whether the new impossibility theorem is a special case of Arrow's theorem, or whether there are interesting disanalogies between the two results. In this paper, we compare the two theorems, and show that they are not straightforward corollaries of each other. We further suggest that, while the framework of preference aggregation can be mapped into the framework of judgment aggregation, there exists no obvious reverse mapping. Finally, we address one particular minimal condition that is used in both theorems – an independence condition – and suggest that this condition points towards a unifying property underlying both impossibility results.     

Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators' Judgments of Witness Reliability1

An experiment was conducted where experienced criminal investigators (N = 49) evaluated the testimony of a witness who either confirmed or disconfirmed the focal hypothesis in a homicide case. Participants' motivation to perpetuate the hypothesis was manipulated by varying the need for cognitive closure via time pressure. The hypothesis‐inconsistent witness was perceived as less reliable and credible, although its background and witnessing conditions were identical to those of the hypothesis‐consistent witness. While this asymmetrical skepticism was not moderated by time pressure, participants under high (vs. low) time pressure were less inclined to adjust their confidence in the hypothesis in line with the witness testimony. Discussion focuses on implications for criminal investigations and theoretical contributions to investigative psychology.     

Judgments of proportions

This study investigated the processes that underlie estimates of relative frequency. Ss performed 4 tasks using the same stimuli (squares containing black and white dots); they judged "percentages" of white dots, "percentages" of black dots, "ratios" of black dots to white dots, and "differences" between the number of black and white dots. Results were consistent with the theory that Ss used the instructed operations with the same scale values in all tasks. Despite the use of the correct operation, Ss consistently overestimated small proportions and underestimated large proportions. Variations in the distributions of actual proportions affected the extent to which Ss overestimated small proportions and underestimated large proportions in the direction predicted by range-frequency theory. Results suggest that proportion judgments, and by analogy probability judgments, should not be taken at face value.