Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities

Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by–or in collaboration with–commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.     

Episodic chasing in pathological gamblers using the Iowa gambling task

"Chasing ones losses" is a key symptom among pathological gamblers (PGs). This study focuses on quantitative differences in episodic chasing (i.e., sequences of disadvantageous decisions within a single gambling session) between PGs and non-pathological gamblers (NPGs). We compared 61 PGs and 39 NPGs on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). The PGs showed significantly more chasing and had significantly poorer decision-making strategies than NPGs, particularly among males (F = 4.52, p < 0.05). Random players were significantly less sensation seeking than advantageous and disadvantageous (i.e., chasing) players, but there was no interaction with group or gender. The results suggest that quantifiable within-session gambling behavior holds important implications for detecting underlying vulnerabilities to gambling pathology.     

Essener Evaluation der Unterbringung in der Entziehungsanstalt

Over the past 20 years various studies have yielded findings regarding the treatment of offenders in forensic addiction treatment centers in Germany (section 64 of the Penal Code). For a number of reasons these studies hardly allow quantification of the assessment of the rehabilitative success of treatment. In 2009 the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry at the University of Essen, Germany was commissioned to engage in a long-term evaluation study that will be completed in 2017. The project is supported by the Ministry of Health of the State of North-Rhine Westphalia. The present paper summarizes the methodology of the study and draws up an interim balance of the data collection. The study involves the follow-up of 300 patients from 16 forensic mental hospitals from entry into the institution to discharge and further on to living in the community including a“time at risk of at least 2 years. A number of these patients will drop out of treatment by being sent back to prison. The rate of criminal recidivism in the complete group of subjects will be compared to a matched control group of 300 offenders serving a prison sentence only. Potential error sources related to the data collection are discussed in the paper.     

Rethinking Epistemic Relativism

“Relativism” is often treated as a dirty word in philosophy, but relativistic theories are not entirely unappealing—they have features that might be tempting if they weren't thought to be outweighed by problematic consequences. The aim of this paper is to rethink both our attitude to epistemic relativism and the basic features of the view itself. The paper discusses four objections and uses them to isolate five constraints on a more plausible epistemic relativism. It then sketches out a view that meets all of these constraints. This stratified epistemic relativism offers a complex, socially informed picture of justification that accounts for the many different kinds of roles that epistemic agents act, and think, in accordance with each day, and can serve as a starting point for constructing a more detailed epistemic relativism, which could secure its appealing benefits without incurring the costs traditionally associated with relativist views.     

Implicational Meaning (Re)Creation in Bereavement as a Lifeworld Dialogue: An Existential–Constructivist Perspective

This article draws on Robert A. Neimeyer's work on meaning reconstruction in bereavement, focusing on an aspect of meaning that has elsewhere been termed implicational meaning and developing an account of relevant meaning-making processes against the background of existential understandings of the 4-dimensional lifeworld structure. The article emphasizes that meaning reconstruction in bereavement can be seen as a deeply emotional, transactional, and creative process, which implies verbal and nonverbal dialogue and transformation across multiple layers and dimensions that can be seen to constitute the person and their lifeworld.     

So close and yet so far away: A psychological distance account of the effectiveness of leader appeals

Contradictory recommendations persist on how leaders best communicate goals to followers. Whereas scholars of visionary leadership recommend emphasizing the desirability of preferred end‐states, scholars of goal setting argue that the perceived feasibility of a goal determines motivation. This paper proposes and tests a synthesis based on construal level theory. Under relatively high (i.e., abstract) levels of construal, such as when leader–follower distance is relatively large, leader appeals that emphasize desirability (i.e., desirable appeals) are more likely to be effective than appeals that emphasize feasibility (i.e., feasible appeals). Under relatively low (i.e., concrete) levels of construal, such as when leader–follower distance is relatively small, feasible appeals are more likely to be effective. Two experimental studies in two different countries provide support for our predictions.     

Muslims Love Jesus,Too? Corrective Information Alters Prejudices Against Islam

The present study examined whether prejudices towards Islam can be altered through corrective information. A total of 1715 German participants were first asked to appraise their opinions towards Judaism, Christianity and Islam (the ratings pertained to progressiveness, tolerance, peacefulness). Subsequently, questions regarding knowledge about religious topics were posed to participants. Questions were selected to elicit common prejudices pertaining to Islam. The correct answers were then displayed along with detailed explanations. Finally, participants were asked to rate their current opinion towards the three religions once again. Opinions towards Islam were largely negative at baseline but improved significantly after presentation of the correct answers. The present study suggests that prejudices against Islam are partially fueled by knowledge gaps.