Why Didn’t Freud Reject Pfister? A Response to Isabelle Noth and Christoph Morgenthaler

The Freud-Pfister correspondence is in some sense an Urtext for the most friendly debate imaginable between the self-identified “godless Jew” who founded psychoanalysis, and the liberal Swiss pastor who was drawn to psychoanalysis while retaining his belief in God. Why didn’t Freud reject Pfister? This article will probe this question using the tools of psychoanalysis itself. After reviewing Freud’s associations to childhood religion, the Bible, and his father (citing Rizzuto), I am proposing that Pfister functioned unconsciously for Freud not only as an admiring son and disciple, but also a father substitute—much like Freud’s beloved antiquities—who represented both a God and a father who would admire and love him, and carry Freud’s name forward in the Book of Life.     

Why,and to What Extent,Is Sexual Infidelity Wrong?

Sexual infidelity is widespread, but it is also widely condemned, yet relatively little philosophical work has been done on what makes it wrong and how wrong it is. In this paper, I argue that sexual infidelity is wrong if it involves breaking a commitment to be sexually exclusive, which has special significance in the relationship. However, it is not necessarily worse than other kinds of infidelity, and the context in which it takes place ought to be considered. I finish the paper by looking at how the hegemonic norm of monogamy makes infidelity both more likely and more difficult to deal with.     

Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats,fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers

A social identity framework was employed to understand why people support the exclusionary treatment of refugee claimants (‘asylum seekers’) in Australia. Over and above individual difference effects of social dominance orientation and individuals' instrumental threat perceptions, insecure intergroup relations between citizens and asylum seekers were proposed to motivate exclusionary attitudes and behaviour. In addition, perceived procedural and distributive fairness were proposed to mediate the effects of social identity predictors on intergroup competitiveness, serving to legitimise citizens' exclusionary behaviours. Support for these propositions was obtained in a longitudinal study of Australians' social attitudes and behaviour. Small and inconsistent individual‐level effects were noted. In contrast, after controlling for these variables, hostile Australian norms, perceived legitimacy of citizen status, and threatening socio‐structural relations were strongly and consistently linked to intentions to support the harsh treatment of asylum seekers, and exclusionary attitudes and action at Time 2. Moreover, perceived procedural and distributive justice significantly mediated these relationships. The roles of fairness and intergroup socio‐structural perceptions in social attitudes and actions are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications analysis

Four 'uses and gratifications' studies investigated peoples' reasons for listening to music (Study 1); and whether these reasons differ significantly from those associated with other leisure activities (Study 2). In Study 3, an open-ended, qualitative research design was used to investigate why people listen to music. In Study 4, a cross-sectional design was used to investigate the possibility that people of different ages might listen to music for different reasons. Findings showed that there are a number of reasons why participants listen to music, comparison of which indicated that participants listen to music primarily to manage/regulate their moods. Comparison with other leisure activities indicated that for the most part, listening to music was rated better than other leisure activities at serving an individual's different needs. This versatility may explain why music is so important to people. Evidence was also found to suggest that the reasons for listening to music may change as people grow older.     

Why (and how) should we study the interplay between emotional arousal,Theory of Mind,and inhibitory control to understand moral cognition?

Findings in the field of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience have shed new light on our understanding of the psychological and biological bases of morality. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to understanding the processes that underlie complex moral dilemmas, attempts to represent the way in which individuals generate moral judgments when processing basic harmful actions are rare. Here, we will outline a model of morality which proposes that the evaluation of basic harmful actions relies on complex interactions between emotional arousal, Theory of Mind (ToM) capacities, and inhibitory control resources. This model makes clear predictions regarding the cognitive processes underlying the development of and ability to generate moral judgments. We draw on data from developmental and cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychopathology research to evaluate the model and propose several conceptual and methodological improvements that are needed to further advance our understanding of moral cognition and its development.     

Group‐based Differences in Perceptions of Racism: What Counts,to Whom,and Why?

Belonging to a group fundamentally shapes the way we interpret and attribute the behavior of others. Similarly, perceptions of racism can be influenced by group membership. Experimental and survey research reveal disagreement between Whites and Blacks about the prevalence of racism in America. Several social cognitive factors contribute to this disagreement: discrepancies in Whites' and Blacks' lay intuitions about the attitudes and behaviors that count as racism, comparison standards when determining racial progress, and the salience of and meaning drawn from successful Black individuals in society. These perceptual discrepancies have consequences for policy attitudes, decisions about how best to combat racial inequality, and beliefs about whether inequality persists. Successful interventions that increase Whites' knowledge of structural racism and that attenuate self‐image threat suggest that it is possible to converge Blacks' and Whites' perceptions of racism by expanding Whites' definition of racism.     

Why worry? Worry, risk perceptions, and willingness to act to reduce medical errors.

Through the domain of medical errors, the role of worry and perceived risk in precautionary behaviors was examined in a convenience sample (N = 195, mean age = 42 years, 71% female). Worry was linked to fatality estimates. A model of the antecedents and consequences of worry also was tested. Risk characteristics such as dread and preventability, negative reactivity, and vulnerability to medical errors appeared to motivate worry about medical errors. Worry about medical errors was a better predictor of intentions to take precautionary actions than were risk perceptions. An understanding of how worry influences preventive efforts will help in building communication strategies to the public and in effectively engaging patients in the role of vigilant partner in care.     

Who Earns More and Why? A Multiple Mediation Model from Personality to Salary

Purpose  

The purpose of this study was to investigate multiple indirect Big Five personality influences on professionals’ annual salary while considering relevant mediators. These are the motivational variables of occupational self-efficacy and career-advancement goals, and the work status variable of contractual work hours. The motivational and work status variables were conceptualized as serial mediators (Big Five → occupational self-efficacy/career-advancement goals → contractual work hours → annual salary).     

Why Fix What Isn't Broken? A Rejoinder to Ridenour,Daley, & Reich*

Ridenour, Daley, & Reich (2000) suggest that the Family Assessment Device should be reorganized. We disagree and provide further reasons why such a reorganization is unwise.     

Why did this happen to me? Religious believers’ and non-believers’ teleological reasoning about life events

People often believe that significant life events happen for a reason. In three studies, we examined evidence for the view that teleological beliefs reflect a general cognitive bias to view the world in terms of agency, purpose, and design. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that individual differences in mentalizing ability predicted both the tendency to believe in fate (Study 1) and to infer purposeful causes of one’s own life events (Study 2). In addition, people’s perception of purpose in life events was correlated with their teleological beliefs about nature, but this relationship was driven primarily by individuals’ explicit religious and paranormal beliefs (Study 3). Across all three studies, we found that while people who believe in God hold stronger teleological beliefs than those who do not, there is nonetheless evidence of teleological beliefs among non-believers, confirming that the perception of purpose in life events does not rely on theistic belief. These findings suggest that the tendency to perceive design and purpose in life events—while moderated by theistic belief—is not solely a consequence of culturally transmitted religious ideas. Rather, this teleological bias has its roots in certain more general social propensities.     

Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly? A test of system- and group-justifying motivations

In two studies, Whites' endorsement of system-justifying beliefs predicted increased negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on discrimination. Whites' system-justifying beliefs were not associated with negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on other internal causes, external causes, or nondiscriminatory unfairness. These negative reactions toward discrimination claimants were mediated by perceptions that the claimant held dissimilar values and failed to take personal responsibility for outcomes. In both studies, participants' White Identification did not moderate the relationship between the Black target's attribution for failure and subsequent negative perceptions of that individual, thus providing evidence against a group-justification explanation of these findings.     

Why do some students want to be actively involved as peer educators,while others do not? Findings from NoTrap! anti-bullying and anti-cyberbullying program

The present study aims to explore if students who voluntarily decide to become peer educators in an anti-bullying program differ from their classmates who don’t take on this role. 524 Italian students (age 13–18; males = 57%), completed self-report questionnaires at the pre-test measure of the NoTrap! anti-bullying program. In a following step, 118 of them voluntarily decided to become peer educators. Probit regression separate for gender, showed that male peer educators have a higher level of victimization, perceived support from friends and prosocial behaviour. On the other hand, female peer educators are characterized by a higher level of defending behaviours. These findings may guide further investigation about the role of peer educator in regards to bullying and cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs.     

Why do officers support community policing? A cross‐departmental and cross‐temporal comparison

Community policing is often seen as a way to repair fractured relationships between law enforcement and the public. Despite its relationship‐building promise and widespread department‐level adoption, individual officers show varying levels of support for community policing which can harm policy implementation. Why are some officers more supportive of community policing than others? Prior research suggests that demographic factors such as the officer's gender, race, age, and education can explain this variance. Across these studies, however, there are several contradicting or non‐replicating findings. Conflicting findings may result from differences by department or differences in methodology or temporal variance – but most policing studies focus on a single department. We begin to adjudicate between the possible explanations for conflicting findings using roll‐call survey data from 741 officers across three neighboring police departments in 2016 and then a replication with 452 officers from one of the original departments in 2019. We find that experience with community policing consistently influences support for the practice while officer gender, age, and education consistently do not. Other results do not replicate across department or time, although we do find non‐replicating significant factors associated with officer support for community policing. Our findings also suggest that departmental and temporal aspects help to explain why policing studies often do not replicate or generalize to other places or contexts.     

Why won’t you do what I want? The informative failures of children and models

Computational models are powerful tools – too powerful, according to some. We argue that the idea that models can “do anything” is wrong, and we describe how their failures have been informative. We present new work showing surprising diversity in the effects of feedback on children's task-switching, such that some children perseverate despite this feedback, other children switch as instructed, and yet others play an “opposites” game without truly switching to the newly instructed task. We present simulations that demonstrate the failure of an otherwise-successful neural network model to capture this failure. Simulating this pattern motivates the inclusion of updating mechanisms that make contact with a growing literature on frontostriatal function, despite their absence in theories of the development of cognitive flexibility. We argue from this and other examples that computational models are more constrained than is typically acknowledged and that their resulting failures can be theoretically illuminating.