Should Social Aggression be Considered “Antisocial”?

There is converging evidence that physical aggression and non-aggressive rule-breaking constitute meaningfully distinct, if somewhat overlapping, dimensions of antisocial behavior, with different developmental trajectories, demographic correlates, and etiologies. Social aggression can also be factor-analytically and demographically distinguished from physically aggressive and rule-breaking antisocial behavior. However, there is ongoing debate as to whether social aggression should also be considered “antisocial” in the way the term is commonly understood, given that socially aggressive behaviors are generally legal and nearly normative during adolescence. The current study sought to empirically evaluate the notion that social aggression constitutes a form of antisocial behavior that is separable from other forms of antisocial behavior. We thus conducted a preliminary study to examine whether social aggression was associated with other forms of antisocial behavior and a variety of correlates of antisocial behavior in a sample of 497 undergraduates. Analyses revealed that social aggression was independently associated with other measures of antisocial behavior, substance use and unethical behaviors, as well as the personality traits known to predict current and future antisocial behavior. These associations were particularly pronounced in women. Such findings are consistent with our hypothesis that social aggression constitutes a distinct form of antisocial behavior.     

Confining Choices: Should Inmates' Participation in Research be Limited?

Historically, prisoners in the United Stateshave served as an inexpensive and readilyavailable source of human subjects forresearch. Coinciding with the civil rightsmovement, however, was an emerging conceptionof prisoners' rights that led to the NationalCommission for the Protection of Human Subjectsof Biomedical and Behavioral Research beingcharged with investigating the use of prisonersas research subjects. The recommendations thatevolved and the subsequent guidelines that havebeen implemented by the Department of Healthand Human Services significantly curtail theuse of prisoners as research subjects. Whilethese measures are designed to protect inmatesfrom the abuses of the past, of particularconcern to many health care officials isexclusion of inmates from experimental HIV/AIDSand hepatitis treatments. This paper addresseswhether the vulnerability of prisoners in theUnited States due to their incarceration issufficient to prohibit them from participationin clinical trials that offer the possibilityof life-saving treatment. It first outlinesthe evolution in moral thinking that has led tolaws broadly prohibiting prisoners frombiomedical research studies and then analyzescases in the law to develop ethical argumentsin support of the view that prisoners should beallowed to participate in clinical trials. Theconclusion is that prisoners should be allowedto participate in such trials.     

Was William James a Patient at McLean Hospital for the Mentally Ill?

Rumors that William James was a patient at McLean Asylum near Boston have persisted for several decades. I focus on the reasons why the question has been so difficult to answer in any definitive way; assess the evidence presented in support of the rumors; note that two different periods in James’s life (late twenties and early sixties) have been judged the most likely; and explore the diagnostic question as well: If he was in fact a patient, for what was he being treated? I also discuss evidence that his younger brother Robertson was a patient at McLean and consider the bearing of this evidence on the question of whether William James was a patient at McLean and on the diagnostic issue.     

Should DBS for Psychiatric Disorders be Considered a Form of Psychosurgery? Ethical and Legal Considerations

Deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical procedure involving the implantation of electrodes in the brain, has rekindled the medical community’s interest in psychosurgery. Whereas many researchers argue DBS is substantially different from psychosurgery, we argue psychiatric DBS—though a much more precise and refined treatment than its predecessors—is nevertheless a form of psychosurgery, which raises both old and new ethical and legal concerns that have not been given proper attention. Learning from the ethical and regulatory failures of older forms of psychosurgery can help shed light on how to address the regulatory gaps that exist currently in DBS research. To show why it is important to address the current regulatory gaps within psychiatric DBS, we draw on the motivations underlying the regulation of earlier forms of psychosurgery in the US. We begin by providing a brief history of psychosurgery and electrical brain stimulation in the US. Against this backdrop, we introduce psychiatric DBS, exploring current research and ongoing clinical trials. We then draw out the ethical and regulatory similarities between earlier forms of psychosurgery and psychiatric DBS. As we will show, the factors that motivated strict regulation of earlier psychosurgical procedures mirror concerns with psychiatric DBS today. We offer three recommendations for psychiatric DBS regulation, which echo earlier motivations for regulating psychosurgery, along with new considerations that reflect the novel technologies used in DBS.     

Should We All be Scientists? Re-thinking Laboratory Research as a Calling

In recent years there have been major shifts in how the role of science—and scientists—are understood. The critical examination of scientific expertise within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are increasingly eroding notions of the “otherness” of scientists. It would seem to suggest that anyone can be a scientist—when provided with the appropriate training and access to data. In contrast, however, ethnographic evidence from the scientific community tells a different story. Scientists are quick to recognize that not everyone can—or should—be a scientist. Appealing to notions such as “good hands” or “gut feelings”, scientists narrate a distinction between good and bad scientists that cannot be reduced to education, access, or opportunity. The key to good science requires scientists to express an intuitive feeling for their discipline, but also that individuals derive considerable personal satisfaction from their work. Discussing this personal joy in—and “fittingness” of—scientific occupations using the fields of STS, ethics and science policy is highly problematic. In this paper we turn to theology discourse to analyze the notion of “callings” as a means of understanding this issue. Callings highlight the identification and examination of individual talents to determine fit occupations for specific persons. Framing science as a calling represents a novel view of research that places the talents and dispositions of individuals and their relationship to the community at the center of flourishing practices.     

The Growing Evidence for Demonic Possession: What Should Psychiatry’s Response be?

Evidence of evil spirits is voluminous and comes from many cultures, both ancient and modern. Cases from China, India, and the United States are examined and evaluated. The actual experience of spirit victims, the universality of spirit oppression, the superhuman phenomena associated with possession, and the comparative success of deliverance and exorcism vs. psychiatry are considered. Potential arguments against the spirit hypothesis center on the antecedent improbability of spirits, multiple personality disorder, and the effectiveness of medication; but these can be countered. Psychiatrists should question their materialist assumption that mental illness is strictly a matter of an aberrant brain, carefully examine the literature of possession, experiment to determine why exorcists and deliverance ministers often succeed where psychiatry fails, and develop a more complete inventory of techniques for healing the complete person.     

Behavior-analytic repertoires: Where will they come from and how can they be maintained?

The field of behavior analysis faces a number of issues concerning its existence as a discipline and as a profession, including (a) identification of the knowledge and skills comprising the repertoire of competent behavior analysts, (b) the nature of the curricula that will produce the scientists and practitioners needed by the discipline, (c) identification of the generic professional and social skills required for any successful professional career, (d) academic employment opportunities for behavior analysts, and (e) the maintenance of behavior-analytic repertoires. Recommendations are offered as possible solutions to problems raised with respect to each of these issues.     

Health Behavior Theories and Research: Implications for Suicidal Individuals’ Treatment Linkage and Adherence

Treatment linkage and adherence to psychotherapeutic interventions can be challenging with suicidal individuals. Health behavior theories, specifically the Health Belief Model, Stages of Change, and Theory of Planned Behavior, focus on individuals' beliefs, their readiness to change, their perceptions of illness severity and "threat," their perceptions of significant others' attitudes toward illness and treatment, and their behavioral intentions to change. These constructs have relevance both for understanding suicidal individuals' behaviors related to treatment utilization and for understanding cultural variations in these behaviors. Furthermore, these theories have implications for clinical practices aimed at facilitating improved treatment follow-through and adherence. After describing the theories and their constructs, clinical examples are provided to illustrate applications to practice with suicidal individuals.     

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.     

Choice theories: What are they good for?

Simonson et al. present an ambitious sketch of an integrative theory of context. Provoked by this thoughtful proposal, I discuss what is the function of theories of choice in the coming decades. Traditionally, choice models and theory have attempted to predict choices as a function of the attributes of options. I argue that to be truly useful, they need to generate specific and quantitative predictions of the effect of the choice environment upon choice probability. To do this, we need to focus on rigorously modeling and measuring the underlying processes causing these effects, and use the Simonson et al. proposal to provide some examples. I also present some examples from research in decision-making and decision neuroscience, and argue that models that fail, and fail spectacularly are particularly useful. I close with a challenge: How would consumer researcher aid the design of real world choice environments such as the health exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?     

Assessing and restoring competency to be executed: Should psychiatrists participate?

Ford v. Wainwright (1986) is one among several recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions granting psychiatrists a distinct but awkward role in the capital punishment process. Ford affirms the right of the condemned to be spared execution while mentally incompetent, and validates state laws requiring psychiatric evaluation and treatment of capital inmates who plead that they have become insane while awaiting execution. The ruling raises troublesome questions for psychiatry, including whether it is ethical for psychiatrists to assess or treat prisoners, thereby enabling their execution. This article argues that evaluation and treatment of capital inmates is in accordance with medical practice standards that emphasize respect for patients' autonomy and rationality.     

Social desirability and self-reported driving behaviours: Should we be worried?

There is widespread use of self-report measures of driving behaviour in the traffic psychology literature, despite the frequent criticism that such measures are subject to social desirability bias. However, no research has yet investigated the more recently developed measures of driving anxiety and avoidance behaviour for socially desirable responding. Furthermore, relatively little research has investigated the issue of socially desirable responding on self-reported driver behaviour in general, and that which does exist has several shortcomings. The present study used a repeated measures design to assess the effect of social desirability on a measure of driving avoidance, the Driving and Riding Avoidance Scale (DRAS), and the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ). A sample of 228 undergraduate students completed the DRAS, DBQ and a measure of socially desirable responding in class, which constituted a public place, and then again 2 months later in the privacy of their homes. None of the DBQ items were significantly different across the two locations. However, two of the DRAS general avoidance items were higher in the public setting, perhaps demonstrating the effect of socially desirable responding on driving avoidance due to environmental or practical concern. Nevertheless, overall it appears as though the DRAS and DBQ are not particularly vulnerable to socially desirable responding, although further well-designed research on the effects of such bias on these and other self-report measures of driving behaviour should be undertaken.     

Artificial Intelligence &; Games: Should Computational Psychology be Revalued?

The aims of this paper are threefold: To show that game-playing (GP), the discipline of Artificial Intelligence (AI) concerned with the development of automated game players, has a strong epistemological relevance within both AI and the vast area of cognitive sciences. In this context games can be seen as a way of securely reducing (segmenting) real-world complexity, thus creating the laboratory environment necessary for testing the diverse types and facets of intelligence produced by computer models. This paper aims to promote the belief that games represent an excellent tool for the project of computational psychology (CP).  To underline how, despite this, GP has mainly adopted an engineering-inspired methodology and in doing so has distorted the framework of cognitive functionalism. Many successes (i.e. chess, checkers) have been achieved refusing human-like reasoning. The AI has appeared to work well despite ignoring an intrinsic motivation, that of creating an explanatory link between machines and mind.  To assert that substantial improvements in GP may be obtained in the future only by renewed interest in human-inspired models of reasoning and in other cognitive studies. In fact, if we increase the complexity of games (from NP-Completeness to AI-Completeness) in order to reproduce real-life problems, computer science techniques enter an impasse. Many of AI’s recent GP experiences can be shown to validate this.  The lack of consistent philosophical foundations for cognitive AI and the minimal philosophical commitment of AI investigation are two of the major reasons that play an important role in explaining why CP has been overlooked.