‘Can’ and the Consequence Argument

The consequence argument is a powerful incompatibilist argument for the conclusion that, if determinism is true, what one does is what one must do. A major point of controversy between classical compatibilists and incompatibilists has been over the use of ‘can’ in the consequence argument. Classical compatibilists, holding that abilities to act are dispositions, have argued that ‘can’ should be analyzed as a conditional. But such an analysis of ‘can’ puts compatibilists in a position to grant the premises of the argument while denying the conclusion. Incompatibilists remain unconvinced, and this corner of the debate over free will has reached a dialectical impasse. The present paper has two aims. First, to offer a new dialectical point of entry into this dispute on behalf of incompatibilists. By making use of Angelika Kratzer's influential semantic work on ‘can’ and ‘must’, I argue that incompatibilists are in a position to offer a plausible, positive treatment of ‘can’ that favors their view. Second, even if one does not think incompatibilism is thereby true (for as we shall see there are places to push back), the Kratzer semantics yields a number of important insights concerning the consequence argument that should be of broad interest. ¹      

Adolescents let sufficient evidence accumulate before making a decision when large incentives are at stake

Adolescent decision‐making has been described as impulsive and suboptimal in the presence of incentives. In this study we examined the neural substrates of adolescent decision‐making using a perceptual discrimination task for which small and large rewards were associated with correctly detecting the direction of motion of a cloud of moving dots. Adults showed a reward bias of faster reaction times on trials for which the direction of motion was associated with a large reward. Adolescents, in contrast, were slower to make decisions on trials associated with large rewards. This behavioral pattern in adolescents was paralleled by greater recruitment of fronto‐parietal regions important in representing the accumulation of evidence sufficient for selecting one choice over its alternative and the certainty of that choice. The findings suggest that when large incentives are dependent on performance, adolescents may require more evidence to accumulate prior to responding, to be certain to maximize their gains. Adults, in contrast, appear to be quicker in evaluating the evidence for a decision when primed by rewards. Overall these findings suggest that rather than reacting hastily, adolescents can be incentivized to take more time to make decisions when large rewards are at stake. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at http://youtu.be/1g4F5vzFDl0     

THE USE OF A VERBAL REPRIMAND TO DECREASE RUMINATION IN A CHILD WITH AUTISM

After a pre‐treatment screening analysis suggested that rumination exhibited by a boy with autism occurred in the absence of social consequences, we evaluated the effect of a verbal reprimand contingent on the target behavior via a reversal design. The reprimand reduced rumination to near‐zero levels; we then thinned the reprimand schedule and rumination remained infrequent. Follow‐up data collected 6, 12, and 18 months after initial treatment suggested that intervention effects were maintained. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sexually Explicit Media and Sexual Risk Behavior in a Sample of Men Who Have Sex with Men in Norway

The aim of this study was to explore the association between the consumption of sexually explicit media (SEM) depicting condom and non-condom use and HIV/STI-related sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Norway. We also explored whether the association between SEM consumption and STI-related sexual risk behavior is mediated by men’s sexual self-esteem and/or condom use self-efficacy. A cross-sectional online survey study was carried out in Norway in 2012. The final sample comprised 529 MSM in Norway. There was a bivariate association between the use of SEM picturing condom use and less STI-related sexual risk behavior. Further, the association between SEM consumption and sexual risk behavior was mediated by condom use self-efficacy. However, SEM did not influence sexual risk behavior via sexual self-esteem. The results offer important cross-cultural validation of recent comparative data from the US and may be used to promote HIV/STI prevention, in the sense that the actors in SEM may serve as role models in managing condom use in sexual contexts.     

Whose idea is it anyway? The importance of reputation in acknowledgement

Six‐year‐old children negatively evaluate plagiarizers just as adults do (Olson & Shaw, 2011), but why do they dislike plagiarizers? Children may think plagiarism is wrong because plagiarizing negatively impacts other people's reputations. We investigated this possibility by having 6‐ to 9‐year‐old children evaluate people who shared their own or other people's ideas (stories). In Experiment 1, we found that children consider it acceptable to retell someone else's story if the source is given credit for their story (improving the source's reputation), but not if the reteller claims credit for the story (steals credit away from someone else). Experiments 2 and 3 showed that children do not consider it bad to lie by giving someone else credit for one's own good story (improving someone else's reputation), but do consider it bad to give someone else credit for one's own bad story (improving one's own reputation at the expense of someone else's). Experiment 4 demonstrated that children think it is equally bad to take credit for someone else's idea for oneself as it is to take someone else's idea and give credit to someone else, suggesting that children dislike when others take credit away from someone else, regardless of whether or not it improves the plagiarizer's reputation. Our results suggest that children dislike plagiarism because it negatively affects others' reputations by taking credit away from them.     

When do women respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety,form, and focus

We examined the personal‐group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD), the tendency for women to recognize that others encounter sexism while simultaneously minimizing their own personal experiences with sexism, and the degree to which it (a) applies to all manifestations of discrimination, and (b) extends beyond perceptions of discrimination to taking action against it. Our findings replicated the PGDD when it comes to perceptions of discrimination, but this effect was reversed for behavioral action such that women were more likely to take action against discrimination when it was directed at them personally. We also disentangled the factors of subtlety (subtle vs. overt) and form (formal vs. interpersonal) by showing that women can reliably distinguish between these factors when determining their reactions to discrimination.