Socially mediated fear reduction in rodents: Distraction,communication, or mere presence?

Two studies investigated why the presence of conspecifics reduces open-field fear. In Experiment 1 rats paired with another experimentally naive rat were not less fearful than alone controls. However, rats paired with a partner who had been preexposed to the open field exhibited fewer fear responses than alone controls. Since preexposed companions appeared to initiate more social interactions than nonpreexposed companions, it was argued that the preexposure effect could be the result of preexposed companions distracting actor rats from threatening stimuli. Experiment 2 tested this explanation by pairing socially sated or socially deprived rats with a socially sated or socially deprived companion. In accord with a distraction hypothesis, pairing two socially deprived rats produced the greatest fear reduction effects and also led to more social interaction than pairing socially sated rats. Alternative explanations involving conditioning and communication are discussed.     

Desired control and felt control as mediators of stress in a dental setting

Control-related variables have clearly affected stress responses in previous research (Thompson, 1981). Prior work, however, has primarily emphasized the amount of control that subjects perceive they have. In the three studies reported here, we examined the added predictive utility of assessing subjects' desire for control. Data from all three studies indicate that subjects who have a high desire for control coupled with a low feeling of control are characterized by particularly high degrees of dental distress. These results were found both in settings where patients anticipated immediate dental treatment and where treatment was not imminent. In addition, the results indicate that this "at risk" group reported greater distress before and immediately after actual dental treatment. Furthermore, they remembered their dental treatment as being more aversive 1 week after treatment. The practical implications and theoretical significance of these data are considered.     

When does algorithmic decomposition help? commentary

Algorithmic decomposition is a way of extending thinking. It will help when thinking is otherwise poor, and it may hinder when thinking is otherwise adequate. It may help decision making more than it helps numerical estimation.     

Psychological Perspectives on Entrepreneurship: Cognitive and Social Factors in Entrepreneurs' Success

Why are some entrepreneurs so much more successful than others in starting new companies—ones that create wealth for their societies as well as themselves? Growing evidence suggests that the answer involves the influence of both cognitive and social factors. Successful entrepreneurs appear to think differently than other persons in several respects (e.g., they are less likely to engage in counterfactual thinking but more likely to show overconfidence in their judgments). Similarly, successful entrepreneurs appear to be higher in social competence —the ability to interact effectively with others (e.g., they are better at social perception and adapting to new social situations). These results suggest that the principles and findings of psychology can be invaluable to researchers in the field of entrepreneurship, providing important insights into the factors that influence entrepreneurs' success.     

The curious case of spacetime emergence

Philosophical Studies - Work in quantum gravity suggests that spacetime is not fundamental. Rather, spacetime emerges from an underlying, non-spatiotemporal reality. After clarifying the type of...     

Grounding at a distance

Philosophical Studies - What distinguishes causation from grounding? One suggestion is that causation, but not grounding, occurs over time. Recently, however, counterexamples to this simple...     

Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting

It was hypothesized that perceptions of women who become entrepreneurs are enhanced by attributional augmenting because they adopt this role despite major obstacles to doing so. In contrast, attributional augmenting was expected to operate to a lesser degree for men who become entrepreneurs because they presumably face weaker obstacles. Three studies offered support for these hypotheses; all of these investigations used between-subjects designs in which women and men shown in standard-format photos were described to different groups of raters as being either entrepreneurs or managers. As predicted, raters assigned significantly higher scores to women, but not to men, when they were described as entrepreneurs.     

Group polarization and choice‐dilemmas: how important is self‐categorization?

Self‐categorization proponents (e.g., Turner, 1991 ) assume that group polarization occurs because discussants wish to differentiate themselves from outgroup positions and implicitly think of such groups even when they are not specifically mentioned. Ingroup/outgroup salience is thought to heighten such effects. To examine this view, we had participants discuss Choice Dilemma items either with or without explicit knowledge of outgroup positions. Contrary to a self‐categorization account, this manipulation of outgroup salience did not affect the degree of group polarization. In addition, rating measures revealed little spontaneous consideration of outgroup positions on the part of participants, nor was consideration of outgroup positions related to degree of polarization. Group members did show evidence of ingroup identification, but this identification was unrelated to participants' post‐discussion conformity to the group consensus. Taken as a whole, these results suggest distinct limits to the self‐categorization interpretation of group polarization involving Choice Dilemmas. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

It’s one thing to rule them all and another thing to bind them

In this paper we offer a response to one argument in favour of Priority Monism, what Jonathan Schaffer calls the nomic argument for monism. We proceed in three stages. We begin by introducing Jonathan Schaffer’s Priority Monism and the nomic argument for that view. We then consider a response to the nomic argument that we presented in an earlier paper (Baron and Tallant in Philos Phenomenol Res 93:583–606, 2016). We show that this argument suffers from a flaw. We then go on to offer a different response to the nomic argument. The core idea is that the current laws of physics are not integrated in the manner that Schaffer requires to get the nomic argument for monism off the ground.

     

Causation in a timeless world

This paper offers a new way to evaluate counterfactual conditionals on the supposition that actually, there is no time. We then parlay this method of evaluation into a way of evaluating causal claims. Our primary aim is to preserve, at a minimum, the assertibility of certain counterfactual and causal claims once time has been excised from reality. This is an important first step in a more general reconstruction project that has two important components. First, recovering our ordinary language claims involving notions such as persistence, change and agency and, second, recovering enough observational evidence so that any timeless metaphysics is not empirically self-refuting. However, the project of investigating causation in a timeless setting has a greater relevance than its application to timeless physical theory alone. For, as we show, it can be used to model the assertibility conditions of causal claims more generally.