Acquiring ownership and the attribution of responsibility

How is ownership established over non-owned things? We suggest that people may view ownership as a kind of credit given to agents responsible for making possession of a non-owned object possible. On this view, judgments about the establishment of ownership depend on attributions of responsibility. We report three experiments showing that people’s judgments about the establishment of ownership are influenced by an agent’s intent and control in bringing about an outcome, factors that also affect attributions of responsibility. These findings demonstrate that people do not just consider who was first to possess an object in judging who owns it, and are broadly consistent with the view that ownership is acquired through labor. The findings also suggest that rather than exclusively being the product of social conventions, judgments about the establishment of ownership over non-owned things also depend on the psychological processes underlying the attribution of responsibility.     

Varieties of Resilience in MIDUS

Population‐based studies of health typically focus on psychosocial contributors to illness and disease. We examine findings from a national longitudinal study of American adults, known as MIDUS (Midlife in the U.S.) to examine the role of psychosocial factors in promoting resilience, defined as the maintenance, recovery, or improvement in health following challenge. Classic studies of resilience are briefly noted, followed by a look at three categories of resilience in MIDUS. The first pertains to having good health and well‐being in the face of low socioeconomic standing. The second pertains to maintaining good health and well‐being despite the challenges that accompany aging. The third pertains to resilience in the face of targeted life challenges such as abuse in childhood, loss of spouse in adulthood, or having cancer. Across each area, we summarize evidence of positive health, and where possible, highlight protective influences that account for such salubrious outcomes. We conclude with opportunities for future research in MIDUS such as examining cultural and genetic influences on resilience as well as utilizing laboratory challenge data to illuminate underlying mechanisms.     

Culture and accountability in negotiation: Recognizing the importance of in-group relations

We extend Gelfand and Realo’s (1999) argument that accountability motivates negotiators from relationally-focused cultures to use a more pro-relationship approach during negotiations. Our research shows that the effect they predict is found only when the other negotiating partner is an in-group member. Specifically, in two studies involving participants from China (a relationally-focused culture) and the US (a less relationally-focused culture), we found that only when negotiating with an in-group member are Chinese participants under high accountability more likely to use a pro-relationship approach than those under low accountability. Consequently, the differences between Chinese and American participants in the use of a pro-relationship approach occur only when they negotiate with an in-group member under high accountability. The strong attention to relationships, however, results in higher fixed-pie perceptions and lower joint gains. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.     

Different standards are not double standards: all elective surgical patients are not alike

Testa and colleagues argue that evaluation for suitability for living donor surgery is rooted in paternalism in contrast with the evaluation for most operative interventions, which is rooted in the autonomy of patients. We examine two key ethical concepts that Testa and colleagues use: paternalism and autonomy, and two related ethical concepts: moral agency and shared decision making. We show that by moving the conversation from paternalism, negative autonomy, and informed consent to moral agency, relational autonomy, and shared decision making, one better understands why the arguments given by Testa and colleagues fail. We argue (1) why the hurdles that one must overcome to become a living donor are appropriate; and (2) that the similarities between living donor transplant surgery and cosmetic plastic surgery that the authors describe are inaccurate. Finally, we consider the recommendation to treat plastic surgery patients and living donors more similarly. We argue that any change should not be in the direction of becoming less protective of living donors, but more protective of cosmetic plastic surgery candidates.