Attitudes,Tracing, and Control

There is an apparent tension in our everyday moral responsibility practices. On the one hand, it is commonly assumed that moral responsibility requires voluntary control: an agent can be morally responsible only for those things that fall within the scope of her voluntary control. On the other hand, we regularly praise and blame individuals for mental states and conditions that appear to fall outside the scope of their voluntary control, such as desires, emotions, beliefs, and other attitudes. In order to resolve this apparent tension, many philosophers appeal to a tracing principle to argue that agents are morally responsible (only) for those attitudes whose existence can be traced back, causally, to a voluntary action or omission in the past. My aim in this article is to critically evaluate this tracing strategy and to argue that it gives us a misguided picture of when and why we are morally responsible for our attitudes. I argue that we should accept a ‘judgment sensitivity’ condition of moral responsibility rather than a ‘voluntary control’ condition, and defend this account against various objections.     

From appraisal to emotion: Differences among unpleasant feelings

Recent research has indicated strong relations between people's appraisals of their circumstances and their emotional states. The present study examined these relations across a range of unpleasant situations in which subjects experienced complex emotional blends. Subjects recalled unpleasant experiences from their pasts that were associated with particular appraisals and described their appraisals and emotions during these experiences. Situations defined by particular appraisals along the human agency or situational control dimensions were reliably associated with different levels of anger, sadness, and guilt, as predicted. However, predicted differences in emotion were not observed for situations selected for appraisals along the certainty or attention dimensions. Most subjects reported experiencing blends of two or more emotions, and correlation/regression analyses indicated that even in the context of these blends, patterns of appraisal similar to those observed previously (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985, 1987) characterized the experience of the individual emotions. The regressions further indicated that appraisals along some dimensions were more important to the experience of particular emotions than were appraisals along other dimensions. Thesecentral appraisals are compared with the adaptive functions their associated emotions are believed to serve, and the implications of these findings are discussed.This research was supported in part by a Stanford University graduate fellowship and in part by a National Institute of Mental Health training grant to Craig Smith. Part of the writing was done while Phoebe Ellsworth was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and by the James McKeen Cattell Fund.     

Subject knowledge of the Experimenter''s interest in handedness and familial sinistrality variables and laterality test outcomes

We investigated the possible influence of common "demand characteristics" on the results on behavioral language laterality tasks. The demand characteristics were (1) whether Ss were or were not recruited for study according to their handedness, and (2) whether a detailed familial sinistrality inquiry was conducted before or after the tasks. Tasks were the Dichotic Consonant Vowel Task (DCVT) and the Bilateral Object Naming Latency Task (BONLT). Results showed no effect of demand characteristics on the BONLT. On the DCVT, however, prior inquiry regarding familial sinistrality was associated with significantly reduced right ear advantages (REAs). Interactions showed that the greatest reduction in REAs occurred in Ss with left-handedness in their families, who were asked about familial sinistrality prior to the tasks, who took the DCVT after the BONLT, and who were also recruited by handedness. Results, though generally reassuring regarding the robustness of the tasks against these sources of bias, raise some cautions for the DCVT.     

PROMOTING LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION: A COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

The Colorado Occupant Protection Project (COPP) intervention provided police with brief instruction concerning the importance of citations for drivers' failure to use child safety seats and special coupons to accompany citations. Coupons were exchangeable by drivers for a safety seat and brief training in its use, plus a waiver of the $50 citation fine. Over 4.5 years of archival records were employed, using an ABA design and a comparison community to evaluate the program. Few tickets were issued for nonuse of safety seats during the 3-year baseline in either community. Citations for nonuse of safety seats increased to over 50 per month during the intervention period at the test site, whereas rates remained essentially zero at the comparison site. After the COPP intervention was removed at the intervention site, citation rates for nonuse of safety seats decreased to about 15 per month. Differences between intervention conditions and settings were statistically significant. During the intervention, officers were 44 times more likely to write citations than were controls. Results suggested that a behavioral program can increase police citation writing for child protection purposes.     

Task bias and the accuracy of judgment: Setting a baseline for expected group performance

When a judgment task evokes unbiased estimates (i.e. the errors in individual judgments are distributed randomly around the true value), mathematical aggregation of individual estimates, even by a simple arithmetic mean, often will outperform all group members. However, when a task evokes biased estimates, mathematical aggregation does not perform so well. In this study, simulated data were accumulated to specify the expected' accuracy of mathematical aggregation relative to the accuracy of observed judgment of individual group members under varying conditions of task bias. Three types of judgment tasks were employed: (1) single-estimate, holistic tasks, (2) multiple-estimate, ranking tasks, and (3) multi-cue, decomposed tasks. Findings indicated across all task types that a large percentage of judgment-making group estimates formed strictly by computing the arithmetic mean of individual estimates performed better than their most capable members when a judgment task evoked little or no bias, a result particularly pronounced for ranking tasks. When the task was more greatly bias-evoking, a large percentage of parallel groups performed more poorly than average (or median) members, again a pattern more starkly evident for ranking tasks. These results suggest that the extent to which a judgment task evokes bias in a population of prospective group members is an important explanatory variable deserving much greater attention in the study of group performance. For example, an assertion about the efficacy of a particular group intervention based on a reliable demonstration of group performance as accurate as the most capable members may be unfounded when a task evokes no bias, since the baseline standard under such conditions should be much higher. By selecting tasks and populations that jointly produced highly biased estimates, researchers can lower the performance floor enough to detect (with reasonably small samples of groups) experimental effects should they occur.     

Helping the child with cancer: what school personnel want to know

As more children with cancer survive, the importance of facilitating school reintegration as a part of maximizing the quality of life has become evident. Workshops have been presented to school personnel to acquaint them with the issues facing cancer patients and their families, but there are gaps in our knowledge of what school personnel really need or want to know. In this study, 18 teachers of children with cancer and 15 teachers with no prior contact with students with cancer completed a questionnaire designed to assess needs, beliefs, and priorities with regard to working with cancer patients in the classroom. Significant findings included: (a) a consensus that a certain core of information about medical/psychological issues would be useful, and presentation of such information by psychologists and medical personnel working with such families would be optimal; (b) teachers having cancer patients as students were less likely to see the adaptation of siblings as an important issue; (c) teachers associated working with a student with cancer with less stress and demands on their time than predictable from previous studies; and (d) cancer patients as a whole were rated as having fewer behavioral, emotional, and learning problems than randomly selected students without a major illness, suggesting a "halo effect" or contradiction of some literature. Preliminary findings are detailed and implications are discussed for those attempting to help teachers facilitate students' adjustment to school following diagnosis and treatment of cancer.