On fundamental responsibility

Some psychological states—paradigmatically, beliefs and intentions—are rationally evaluable: they can be rational or irrational, justified or unjustified. Other states—e.g. sensations and gastrointestinal states—aren't: they're a‐rational. On a familiar but hard‐to‐make‐precise line of thought, at least part of what explains this difference is that we're somehow responsible for (having/being in) states of the former sort, in a way we're not for the others. But this responsibility can't be modeled on the responsibility we have for our (free, intentional) actions. So how should it be understood? In this paper I address that question. The overall shape of my answer is in line with tradition: I take the responsibility to be grounded in certain capacities for reflection and control. Answers in this family have recently been subjected to an interesting challenge. But the version I defend meets that challenge.     

Factor Structure of a Coping Scale Across Two Samples1

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to assess the structure of a coping with illness scale. Two HIV‐positive samples from different geographical areas were used to verify the underlying factor structure: a sample of 320 young adults (M age = 20.9 years; 72% males) and a second sample of 273 older adults (M= 38.1 years; 81% females). Exploratory results with the young adult sample assuming correlated factors showed 7 reliable factors; CFA results supported these findings in that sample. Confirmation of the 7 derived subscales using the adult sample was found using CFA, although 2 subscale reliabilities were just below .50. Correlations between the 7 sub‐scales and other scales used for construct validation were generally as predicted. Coping similarities and differences between HIV‐infected young adult and adult populations are discussed.     

Parents‐in‐law's topic avoidance: Understanding the role of interaction goals and relational characteristics

Utilizing dual logic from a multiple goals and relational turbulence theory, this study examined parents‐in‐law's interaction goals for topic avoidance with their children‐in‐law. Data from 159 parents‐in‐law revealed that multiple and conflicting goals were associated with parents‐in‐law's topic avoidance. Furthermore, relational parameters (i.e., relational uncertainty and partner influence) were associated with the goals in‐laws pursued. Results augment theorizing on a multiple goals perspective, relational turbulence, and topic avoidance, as well as theoretically ground the study of in‐law communication.     

Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer‐Mediated Communication

Two experiments addressed the questions of if and how normative social influence operates in anonymous computer‐mediated communication (CMC) and human‐computer interaction (HCI). In Experiment 1, a 2 (public response vs. private response) × 2 (one interactant vs. four interactants) × 3 (textbox vs. stick figure vs. animated character) mixed‐design experiment (N = 72), we investigated how conformity pressure operates in a simulated CMC setting. Each participant was asked to make a decision in hypothetical social dilemmas after being presented with a unanimous opinion by other (ostensible) participants. The experiment examined how the visual representation of interaction partners on the screen moderates this social influence process. Group conformity effects were shown to be more salient when the participant's responses were allegedly seen by others, compared to when the responses were given in private. In addition, participants attributed greater competence, social attractiveness, and trustworthiness to partners represented by anthropomorphic characters than those represented by textboxes or stick figures. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, replacing interaction with a computer(s) rather than (ostensible) people, to create an interaction setting in which no normative pressure was expected to occur. The perception of interaction partner (human vs. computer) moderated the group conformity effect such that people expressed greater public agreement with human partners than with computers. No such difference was found for the private expression of opinion. As expected, the number of computer agents did not affect participants' opinions whether the responses were given in private or in public, while visual representation had a significant impact on both conformity measures and source perception variables.     

Children's interpretive understanding,moral judgments,and emotion attributions: Relations to social behaviour

The study investigated interpretive understanding, moral judgments, and emotion attributions in relation to social behaviour in a sample of 59 5‐year‐old, 123 7‐year‐old, and 130 9‐year‐old children. Interpretive understanding was assessed by two tasks measuring children's understanding of ambiguous situations. Moral judgments and emotion attributions were measured using two moral rule transgressions. Social behaviour was assessed using teachers' ratings of aggressive and prosocial behaviour. Aggressive behaviour was positively related to interpretive understanding and negatively related to moral reasoning. Prosocial behaviour was positively associated with attribution of fear. Moral judgments and emotion attributions were related, depending on age. Interpretive understanding was unrelated to moral judgments and emotion attributions. The findings are discussed in regard to the role of interpretive understanding and moral and affective knowledge in understanding children's social behaviour.     

Perceived Distributive Fairness of European Transfer Payments and EU‐Taxes in Austria,the Czech Republic,and the United Kingdom

The present research compared a distributive fairness model of EU transfer payments (Hartner, Rechberger, Kirchler, & Wenzel, 2011) between three countries: Austria, the Czech Republic, and the UK. The model postulates an interplay between EU‐tax compliance, distributive fairness, outcome favorability as well as national and European identification. Results across countries showed that EU‐tax compliance was positively related to distributive justice, which was in turn related to outcome favorability and identification. National identifiers perceived EU membership as unfavorable in financial and socio‐political terms, and thus considered the transfer payments as less fair. Dual identifiers perceived the socio‐political outcomes as more favorable, and thus evaluated the transfer payments as fairer. Although the basic structure of the model was valid across all three countries, two country‐specific results were found. First, in the UK individual tax paying behavior was influenced by outcome favorability, whereas in Austria and the Czech Republic this relationship was mediated via distributive fairness. Second, in the Austrian sample, the differentiation between patriots and nationalists proved fruitful since nationalists considered the EU transfer payments as unfair, unlike patriots. In the UK and the Czech Republic the distinction between nationalists and patriots did not add any further information.     

Two Studies Examining the Error Theory Underlying the Measurement Model of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

Meta‐analysis indicates moderate correlations between the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) and other self‐report measures but near‐zero correlations with behavioral measures. Accurately interpreting correlations between the VAS and other variables, however, requires an examination of the untested error theory underlying the measurement model for the VAS. In two separate studies, the results of single‐factor correlated uniqueness confirmatory factor analytic models revealed a pattern of significant error covariances indicating that VAS item scores are confounded by systematic error attributable to multiple unspecified latent effects. After pruning the item sets, we identified 4 items that were free of latent variable influences other than trait verbal aggressiveness. Implications for interpreting the verbal aggressiveness literature are discussed along with recommendations for revising the VAS.