The Brier Rule Is not a Good Measure of Epistemic Utility (and Other Useful Facts about Epistemic Betterness)

Measures of epistemic utility are used by formal epistemologists to make determinations of epistemic betterness among cognitive states. The Brier rule is the most popular choice (by far) among formal epistemologists for such a measure. In this paper, however, we show that the Brier rule is sometimes seriously wrong about whether one cognitive state is epistemically better than another. In particular, there are cases where an agent gets evidence that definitively eliminates a false hypothesis (and the probabilities assigned to the other hypotheses stay in the same ratios), but where the Brier rule says that things have become epistemically worse. Along the way to this ‘elimination experiment’ counter-example to the Brier rule as a measure of epistemic utility, we identify several useful monotonicity principles for epistemic betterness. We also reply to several potential objections to this counter-example.     

Visualizing actions from a third‐person perspective: effects on health behavior and the moderating role of behavior difficulty

Visualizing behavior from a third‐person (vs. first‐person) perspective can produce stronger motivation to enact the behavior. However, the effects of perspective on health behaviors have been mixed. Hypothesizing that the difficulty of the visualized behavior might moderate the effect of perspective, two experiments manipulated the difficulty of the visualized behaviors (fruit/vegetable consumption; exercise) plus perspective and subsequently measured motivation (Experiments 1 and 2) and behavior (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the third‐person perspective produced stronger motivation to perform the easier, but not the more difficult, behavior. This effect extended to behavior in Experiment 2. Under certain conditions, encouraging people to visualize behavior from a third‐person perspective could represent a useful and cost‐effective means of promoting health behavior change.     

Toward quantifying the abuse liability of ultraviolet tanning: A behavioral economic approach to tanning addiction

Many adults engage in ultraviolet indoor tanning despite evidence of its association with skin cancer. The constellation of behaviors associated with ultraviolet indoor tanning is analogous to that in other behavioral addictions. Despite a growing literature on ultraviolet indoor tanning as an addiction, there remains no consensus on how to identify ultraviolet indoor tanning addictive tendencies. The purpose of the present study was to translate a behavioral economic task more commonly used in substance abuse to quantify the "abuse liability" of ultraviolet indoor tanning, establish construct validity, and determine convergent validity with the most commonly used diagnostic tools for ultraviolet indoor tanning addiction (i.e., mCAGE and mDSM‐IV‐TR). We conducted a between‐groups study using a novel hypothetical Tanning Purchase Task to quantify intensity and elasticity of ultraviolet indoor tanning demand and permit statistical comparisons with the mCAGE and mDSM‐IV‐TR. Results suggest that behavioral economic demand is related to ultraviolet indoor tanning addiction status and adequately discriminates between potential addicted individuals from nonaddicted individuals. Moreover, we provide evidence that the Tanning Purchase Task renders behavioral economic indicators that are relevant to public health research. The present findings are limited to two ultraviolet indoor tanning addiction tools and a relatively small sample of high‐risk ultraviolet indoor tanning users; however, these pilot data demonstrate the potential for behavioral economic assessment tools as diagnostic and research aids in ultraviolet indoor tanning addiction studies.     

Dealing with Multiple Solutions in Structural Vector Autoregressive Models

Structural vector autoregressive models (VARs) hold great potential for psychological science, particularly for time series data analysis. They capture the magnitude, direction of influence, and temporal (lagged and contemporaneous) nature of relations among variables. Unified structural equation modeling (uSEM) is an optimal structural VAR instantiation, according to large-scale simulation studies, and it is implemented within an SEM framework. However, little is known about the uniqueness of uSEM results. Thus, the goal of this study was to investigate whether multiple solutions result from uSEM analysis and, if so, to demonstrate ways to select an optimal solution. This was accomplished with two simulated data sets, an empirical data set concerning children's dyadic play, and modifications to the group iterative multiple model estimation (GIMME) program, which implements uSEMs with group- and individual-level relations in a data-driven manner. Results revealed multiple solutions when there were large contemporaneous relations among variables. Results also verified several ways to select the correct solution when the complete solution set was generated, such as the use of cross-validation, maximum standardized residuals, and information criteria. This work has immediate and direct implications for the analysis of time series data and for the inferences drawn from those data concerning human behavior.     

Business Ethics without Philosophers? Evidence for and Implications of the Shift From Applied Philosophers to Business Scholars on the Editorial Boards of Business Ethics Journals

This article considers the relationship between business ethics and philosophy, specifically in relation to the field and persons working in it. The starting point is a grammatical one: business ethics by the rules of grammar belongs to ethics. In terms of academic disciplines, it belongs to applied ethics, which belongs to ethics, which belongs to practical philosophy, which belongs to philosophy. However, in the field of business ethics today one will seldom meet colleagues from philosophy; instead, they will come from business, applying business studies perspectives, approaches, and increasingly quantitative methods. This article provides empirical evidence that today the three top journals with “business ethics” in their titles (and “awarded” a high impact factor) are mostly run (in terms of their editorial boards) by business scholars with PhDs in business. The article compares the three journals today with their inaugural issues and finds that at their inception all three were run by a majority of philosophers. The article discusses six possible explanations for this shift and provides suggestions for how to bring business ethics back to philosophers (and vice versa).