We are our passions: The role of identity processes in harmonious and obsessive passion and links to optimal functioning in society

The Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP) proposes two types of passion, namely harmonious passion and obsessive passion. The DMP posits that the activity becomes part of one’s identity. However, little research assessed how the two types of passion relate to identity. Two important facets of identity hypothesized to be associated with passion are identity integration and identity styles. In two studies, we assessed these types of identity processes as determinants of passion. We expected the presence of positive associations between on the one hand informational identity style, identity integration, and their interaction term and HP on the other, and positive associations between normative identity style and OP. Participants in both studies (N1 = 107 and N2 = 135) completed the Identity Style Inventory-3, the Identity Integration subscale of the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory, and the Passion Scale. In addition, in Study 2 we also looked at the relationships between passion and five indicators of the construct of Optimal Functioning in Society. Overall, results were consistent with our hypotheses.     

The Rule-Following Considerations and Metaethics: Some False Moves

In a series of influential papers, John McDowell has argued that the rule-following considerations explored in Wittgenstein's later work provide support for a particularist form of moral objectivity. The article distinguishes three such arguments in McDowell's writings, labelled the Anthropocentricism Argument, the Shapelessness Argument, and the Anti-Humean Argument, respectively, and the author disputes the effectiveness of each of them. As far as these metaethical debates are concerned, the article concludes that the rule-following considerations leave everything in their place.     

Statistical power analyses using G<Superscript>*</Superscript>Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses

G^*Power is a free power analysis program for a variety of statistical tests. We present extensions and improvements of the version introduced by Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner (2007) in the domain of correlation and regression analyses. In the new version, we have added procedures to analyze the power of tests based on (1) single-sample tetrachoric correlations, (2) comparisons of dependent correlations, (3) bivariate linear regression, (4) multiple linear regression based on the random predictor model, (5) logistic regression, and (6) Poisson regression. We describe these new features and provide a brief introduction to their scope and handling.     

Does betrayal aversion really guide trust decisions towards strangers?

Trust is a double-edged sword. When warranted, it leads to positive and rewarding interactions. When not, it leads to disappointment and anger. Therefore, it has been argued that people will display “betrayal aversion” in trust situations (i.e., avoid trusting to avoid betrayal). Yet, people also feel tense and uneasy when they signal distrust to another person and thus show signs of “principled trustfulness” (i.e., choosing to trust others although being skeptical of their trustworthiness). These two theoretical orientations imply directly opposite influences on trust behavior. Thus, we conducted two laboratory studies (with a total of 841 participants) with binary trust games (implying a risk of being betrayed) and extended lottery games (implying no such risk). In both studies, we varied the payoff structures of both games. Further, we made sure that the average perceived likelihood of winning or losing money when choosing the risky option was identical in both games, as was the distribution of these likelihoods. Neither study showed any sign of betrayal aversion. Rather, participants were more willing to risk their money in the trust game than they were to invest their money in a lottery, supporting the principled trustfulness view. We discuss possible explanations why, unlike previous studies, we did not find any indication of betrayal aversion.