Mastering moral misery: Emotional and coping responses to intragroup morality (vs. competence) evaluations

In social groups, individuals are often confronted with evaluations of their behaviour by other group members and are motivated to adapt their own behaviour accordingly. In two studies we examine emotional responses towards, and perceived coping abilities with, morality vs. competence evaluations individuals receive from other in-group members. In Study 1, we show that evaluations of one's immoral behaviour primarily induce guilt, whereas evaluations of incompetent behaviour raise anger. In Study 2, we elaborate on the psychological process associated with these emotional responses, and demonstrate that evaluations of immorality, compared to incompetence, diminish group members’ perceived coping abilities, which in turn intensifies feelings of guilt. However, when anticipating an opportunity to restore one's self-image as a moral group member, perceived coping abilities are increased and the experience of guilt is alleviated. Together these studies demonstrate how group members can overcome their moral misery when restoring their self-image.     

Natural and Ethical Normativity

In this paper, I argue that ethical normativity can be grounded in the natural normativity of organisms without being reducible to it. Michael Thompson and Philippa Foot both offer forms of neo‐Aristotelian ethical naturalism; I argue that both accounts have gaps that point toward the need for a constructive virtue ethics grounded in natural normativity. Similarly, Korsgaard's constructivist ethics ignores the ongoing relevance of natural norms in human ethical life. I thus offer an account according to which the self‐shaping activity of human organisms supplements and transforms natural normativity, giving rise to ethical norms. Such an account grounds human ethical distinctiveness in rationality without excluding nonrational humans from the ethical community. In the final section of the paper, I argue that ethical standards can be discovered (or hidden) through human activities, thus allowing for gradual progression (or regression) in ethical knowledge, both on individual and cultural levels.     

Predictive validity of the Westmead Post-Traumatic Amnesia Scale for functional outcomes in school-aged children who sustained traumatic brain injury

The Westmead Post-Traumatic Amnesia Scale (WPTAS) is routinely used for the assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in children who sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, the WPTAS' predictive validity for functional outcomes is largely unknown. We aimed to determine whether PTA duration measured by the WPTAS (i) differentially predicts functional outcomes and (ii) contributes to predictions of outcomes beyond the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in children who sustained TBI. Participants were children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe TBI (n = 55) aged 8–15 years. PTA duration was assessed with the WPTAS. Outcomes at the first outpatient follow-up were scored on the Kings Outcome Scale for Childhood Head Injury (KOSCHI) and the TBI Outcome Domain Scale-Extended (ODS-E). Longer PTA and lower GCS were both significantly correlated with worse (i) global outcomes: presence of disability on the KOSCHI and lower score on the ODS-E and (ii) select specific outcomes on the ODS-E: mobility, mood and cognition. PTA duration predicted cognitive outcome on the ODS-E independently, beyond GCS. Together, PTA duration and GCS, predicted the global KOSCHI outcome, as well as the ODS-E mobility and mood outcomes. Neither GCS nor PTA duration correlated with the ODS-E communication, impulsivity/disinhibition, headache, fatigue, sensory impairments or somatic complaints outcomes. PTA duration measured by the WPTAS is a significant unique predictor of functional cognitive outcomes in children who sustained moderate-to-severe TBI, and in combination with the GCS, a significant predictor of global, and several specific functional outcomes.     

Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: on the problem of facsimile science

Paul Hoyningen-Huene argues that what makes scientific knowledge special is its systematic character, and that this can be used to solve the demarcation problem. He labels this STDC: “Systematicity Theory’s Demarcation Criterion.” This paper argues that STDC fails, because there are areas of intellectual activity that are highly systematic, but that the great majority of scientists and historians and philosophers of science do not accept as scientific. These include homepathy, creationism, and climate change denial. I designate these activities “facsimile sciences” because they mimic the appearance of science but are not, by the standards of philosophers and scientists, scientific. This suggests that we need additional criteria to demarcate science from non-science and/ or nonsense.

     

Experience of a Lifetime: Study Abroad,Trauma, and Institutional Betrayal

This study is the first to expand the investigation of study-abroad risks to include a range of traumatic experiences for male and female students and to examine effects of institutional betrayal (i.e., an institution’s failure to prevent trauma or support survivors). In an online survey of 173 university students who had studied abroad, many respondents (45.44%, n = 79) reported exposure to at least 1 traumatic experience while abroad, most frequently natural disasters, sexual assault, and unwanted sexual experiences. Of students exposed to potentially traumatic events, more than one third (35.44%, n = 28) also reported at least 1 form of related institutional betrayal, which uniquely correlated with posttraumatic distress in some participants, when controlling for lifetime trauma history.