Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning

Metaphorical meaning can be analyzed as triggered by an apparent communicative breach, an incongruity that leads to a default of the presumptive interpretation of a vehicle. This breach can be solved through contextual renegotiations of meaning guided by the communicative intention, or rather the presumed purpose of the metaphorical utterance. This paper addresses the problem of analyzing the complex process of reasoning underlying the reconstruction of metaphorical meaning. This process will be described as a type of abductive argument, aimed at explaining how the vehicle can best contribute to the purpose of the utterance. This type of reasoning involves the analysis of the possible predicates that can be and usually are attributed to the vehicle, and the selection of the one (or ones) that can support the implicit conclusion constituting the communicative goal of the metaphorical utterance. Metaphorical meaning, in this perspective, becomes the outcome of a complex process of meaning reconstruction aimed at providing the best explanation of the function of the vehicle within a discourse move.     

Aggregating with reason(s)

Judgment aggregation is naturally applied to the modeling of collective attitudes. In the individual case, we represent agents as having not just beliefs, but also as supporting them with reasons. Can the Judgment Aggregation help model a concept of collective reason? I argue that the resources of the standard judgment aggregation framework are insufficiently general. I develop a generalization of the framework that improves along this dimension. In the new framework, new aggregation rules become available, as well as a natural account of collective reasons.     

Democracy justifies the means: political group structure moderates the perceived legitimacy of intergroup aggression

The present research tested the hypothesis that the political structure of conflicting groups moderates perceived legitimacy of intergroup aggression. In two experiments, participants read scenarios of fictitious summer camps in which members of one group aggressed members of another group. The political structure of both the perpetrator and the victim groups was described as either egalitarian (defined with democratic decision-making procedures) or hierarchical (authoritarian decision-making procedures). Results of both experiments showed that aggressions perpetrated by members of egalitarian groups at the expense of members of hierarchical groups were evaluated as less illegitimate than aggressions committed in the three remaining conditions. This effect is discussed as a function of the higher social value attributed to democratic groups.     

Interaction with a high-versus low-competence influence source in inductive reasoning

Literature on inductive reasoning shows that when testing hypotheses, people are biased toward the use of confirmatory strategies (P. C. Wason, 1960). In the present article, the authors presented 2 studies showing how people use confirmation and disconfirmation strategies during actual interaction in problem solving. Study 1 showed that participants were able to learn to use disconfirmation when confronted with a low-competence, nonthreatening partner. When the partner was high in competence (thereby threatening the participant's competence), participants used confirmation, even when the partner used disconfirmation. In Study 2, the authors aimed at generalizing the aforementioned results by exploring the hypothesis that disconfirmation stems from the possibility of diverging from norms. Participants who were confronted with the violation of a conversational norm used a high proportion of disconfirmation, whatever the source of influence. When there was no violation but there was a low-competence partner, the proportion of disconfirmation was high; when there was no violation but there was a high-competence partner, the proportion of disconfirmation was low. The authors discussed the interpersonal functions of confirmation and disconfirmation.     

Effects of natural stress relief meditation on trait anxiety: a pilot study

Natural Stress Relief meditation, a mental technique which is practiced for 15 minutes twice a day, aims to reduce stress and anxiety by eliciting a specific state of physiological rest along with mental alertness. The meditation is taught in a self-administered program, requiring one hour of training during the first three days, followed by the regular twice daily practice. Each 15-min. session consists in sitting quietly with closed eyes while applying a specific mental procedure. To test the effectiveness of meditation in reducing trait anxiety, Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was administered to 25 participants four times over a 3-wk. period: one week before starting to practice the meditation, a few hours before starting, 1 wk. after, and 2 wk. after. The difference in Trait Anxiety score between pretreatment and before starting the practice was not significant, while it was significant both after the first week of practice (Cohen d=.46) and after the first 2 wk. of practice (d=.67).     

Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions

In this paper we analyze the uses and misuses of argumentation schemes from verbal classification, and show how argument from definition supports argumentation based on argument from verbal classification. The inquiry has inevitably included the broader study of the concept of definition. The paper presents the schemes for argument from classification and for argument from definition, and shows how the latter type of argument so typically supports the former. The problem of analyzing arguments based on classification is framed in a structure that reveals the crucial role it plays in the persuasion process. The survey of the literature includes the work of Hastings, Perelman, Kienpointner and Schiappa, but still finds much of value in Aristotle. Lessons drawn from Aristotle’s Topics are shown to be useful for developing new tools for assessing definitions and arguments from definition.

Judgments in a hurry: Time pressure affects how judges assess unfairly shared losses and unfairly shared gains

Human society has evolved to allow third parties—the court system, parents or other societal arbitrators—to punish norm violators and compensate victims. Few studies explore the effect of stress or time pressure on a third‐party judge. Under time pressure, people will likely show a more instinctual reaction or judgment style. We investigated third‐party punishment and compensation within the context of unfairly shared losses and gains in a dictator game under time pressure. Our results show that under no time pressure, participants were inclined to punish dictators who unfairly split windfall gains; however, participants chose to compensate victims more than punish the norm‐violating dictators in the context of unfairly shared losses. With added time pressure, third‐parties were disposed to inflict punishment upon the dictator in both the gain and loss contexts—punishment became the action of choice. Our results shed light on the way observed behavior and stress affect social cognition and decision making in the context of altruistic social interventions and the enforcement of social norms.     

A microswitch‐based program for promoting initial ambulation responses: An evaluation with two girls with multiple disabilities

We assessed the use of a microswitch‐based program for promoting ambulation responses by two children with multiple disabilities. The goals of the study were to: (a) evaluate the importance of the contingency between the target behavior (forward step) and the programmed consequence (preferred stimuli), (b) measure effects of the intervention on indices of happiness, and (c) assess the social validation of the procedure using 20 physiotherapists as external raters. The intervention involved the automatic delivery of preferred stimuli contingent on forward steps. Results showed that both participants improved their performance (forward steps and indices of happiness) during contingent reinforcement phases compared to baseline and noncontingent reinforcement phases. Moreover, physiotherapists rated the intervention as socially valid.