Natural born killers: The genetic origins of extreme violence

The current article examines the influence of genetics and evolution on acts of extreme and criminal violence among human primates. Moderate aggression can function to increase an organism's reproductive success; extreme violence can place the organism at unnecessary risk. Genetic polymorphisms that have been linked to extreme acts of violence are reviewed as is research elucidating how genetic risk and environmental stress may interact to increase risk of extreme violence. Extreme violence is viewed as high-end variance in an evolutionarily adaptive process in which the propensity for aggression and violent behavior, in moderate doses, has been adaptive for individual humans.     

An appraisal of the validity of the factor loadings employed in the construction of the primary social attitude scales

In this article the authors examine the effect of including alternate test forms in a factor matrix upon the validity of the resultant factor loadings, finding that in this particular instance the effect is negligible. Comparisons of the factor loadings derived from matrices in which only one of the alternate test forms is included with those in which both forms are included reveal practically no difference in the magnitude of either the original or rotated factor loadings, or in that of the computed communalities.     

The factorial interpretation of test difficulty

This paper discusses the influence of test difficulty on the correlation between test items and between tests. The greater the difference in difficulty between two test items or between two tests the smaller the maximum correlation between them. In general, the greater the number of degrees of difficulty among the items in a test or among the tests in a battery, the higher the rank of the matrix of intercorrelations; that is, differences in difficulty are represented in the factorial configuration as additional factors. The suggestion is made that if all tests included in a battery are roughly homogeneous with respect to difficulty existing hierarchies will be more clearly defined and meaningful psychological interpretation of factors more readily attained.     

Pick Your Poison: Choice of Activity Determines Mood Management Following a Stressful Task

People routinely seek out activities they believe will relieve stress. There has always been debate regarding the extent to which different activities, particularly those with aggressive content, successfully manage mood or worsen it. It is routinely believed that engaging in highly aggressive activities after becoming stressed worsens mood. However, unlike experiments, in real life people generally select activities that match their interests. In the present study, 105 university students were exposed to an acute stressor then randomized to either (a) a time filler control task; (b) to hit a bobo doll; or (c) given a choice of five different activities, some aggressive, some not. Results indicated that those who were given a choice of activities experienced the greatest reductions in stress and hostility. Furthermore, evidence did not suggest that more aggressive activities made participants more hostile, stressed, or aggressive.     

Are we all exploiters?*

This paper argues that two single-factor accounts of exploitation are inadequate and instead defends a two-factor account. Purely distributive accounts of exploitation, which equate exploitation with unfair transaction, make exploitation pervasive and cannot deliver the intuition that exploiters are blameworthy. Recent, non-distributive alternatives, which make unfairness unnecessary for exploitation, largely avoid these problems, but their arguments for the non-necessity of unfairness are unconvincing. This paper defends a two factor account according to which A exploits B iff A gains unfairly from B and either A believes that the gains he receives in the transaction wrong B, or A is culpably unaware that the gains he receives in the transaction wrong B. This account avoids the problems of non-distributive approaches and also delivers the intuition that exploiters are blameworthy.     

Why Buy Local?

This article critically assesses the moral arguments that speak in favour of three consumer options: buying local food, buying global (non‐local) food, and buying global food while also purchasing carbon offsets to mitigate the environmental impact of food transportation. We argue that because the offsetting option allows one to provide economic benefits to the poorest food workers while also mitigating the environmental impact of food transportation it is morally superior to the alternatives.