A Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Notion of Relative Importance of Criteria

Multiple-criteria decision aid almost always requires the use of weights, importance coefficients or even a hierarchy of criteria, veto thresholds, etc. These are importance parameters that are used to differentiate the role devoted to each criterion in the construction of comprehensive preferences. Many researchers have studied the problem of how to assign values to such parameters, but few of them have tried to analyse in detail what underlies the notion of importance of criteria and to give a clear formal definition of it. In this paper our purpose is to define a theoretical framework so as to analyse the notion of the importance of criteria under very general conditions. Within this framework it clearly appears that the importance of criteria is taken into account in very different ways in various aggregation procedures. This framework also allows us to shed new light on fundamental questions such as: Under what conditions is it possible to state that one criterion is more important than another? Are importance parameters of the various aggregation procedures dependent on or independent of the encoding of criteria? What are the links between the two concepts of the importance of criteria and the compensatoriness of preferences? This theoretical framework seems to us sufficiently general to ground further research in order to define theoretically valid elicitation methods for importance parameters.     

Similarity Within (Ultimate) Dissimilarity: Burrell and Milbank on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology

This article examines the influential analogical schemas of David Burrell and John Milbank. While Milbank emphasises that analogy must be understood as primarily an ontological doctrine, much of Burrell’s work focuses on semantic rather than ontological issues. Milbank has strongly criticised one of Burrell’s early books for construing Aquinas too much in terms of the agnosticism of Kant. It is demonstrated, however, that Burrell is increasingly led in his reading of Aquinas to acknowledge the necessity of a similitude of participation between creatures and God. Analysis of the disagreement between Burrell and Milbank shows one of the reasons why the via analogia matters. We need not privilege the apophatic over the cataphatic, nor the cataphatic over the apophatic. The way of analogy transcends this unpalatable either/or. As relying on the proper exercises, on practical know-how, analogy allows theology a powerful pedagogical tool to govern God-talk, while yet affirming the continual revelation and discovery of something ever-greater.     

Standing up for whom? Targets’ different goals in the confrontation of discrimination

We challenge the common interpretation of targets’ immediate confrontation in reaction to discrimination as self-serving behavior and propose different underlying motivations for this phenomenon. In five online scenario studies (N_overall = 1,447), we demonstrate across different samples and contexts that targets indicate a distinct pursuit of the following self-reported confrontation goals: individual-benefit (e.g., perpetrator apologizes); group-benefit (e.g., prejudice reduction); and distancing (e.g., demonstrating that one is different from typical group members). Furthermore, meaningful associations of the pursuits of individual-benefitting goals and group-benefitting goals with group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intentions indicate that they represent different confrontation motivations: Individual-benefitting confrontation serves to cope with the individual mistreatment of discrimination, whereas group-benefitting confrontation represents a form of collective action. Distancing goals were associated with disidentification and—unexpectedly—group identification. Our results show that the phenomenon of confrontation in reaction to discrimination can be the result of different underlying psychological processes.     

Intersexual aggression and male sexual activity in captive rhesus macaques

Rape has been posited to be an outgrowth of male reproductive strategies. Forced copulations may have evolved as a consequence of the low parental investment made by males in producing and raising offspring. We designed a laboratory experiment which paired rhesus macaque males with females in order to assess the influence of intersexual aggression on male sexual activity. Younger and older adult males had comparable levels of sexual behavior, but younger males were more aggressive towards females than were older males. In addition, females threatened younger males more than older males. Male attacks on females did not result in sexual intercourse. On the contrary, a negative correlation existed between male aggression towards females and male success at achieving intromissions. Female aggression towards males appeared to be an effective tactic which reduced the chances of sexual intercourse. We conclude that intersexual aggression acts either as a mechanism of dominance assertion or as a means to increase spatial distance between individuals. These data do not support the idea that rape in humans has an evolutionary foundation derived from male reproductive strategies.     

Issues in exercise,fitness, and subjective perceptions of fitness of physical education teachers

Several issues arise on reading the paper by Netz and Raviv. Their role in interpretation of the data and stimulating questions for further study is mentioned.     

The accuracy of abstracts in psychology journals

This article provides an empirically supported reminder of the importance of accuracy in scientific communication. The authors identify common types of inaccuracies in research abstracts and offer suggestions to improve abstract-article agreement. Abstracts accompanying 13% of a random sample of 400 research articles published in 8 American Psychological Association journals during 1997 and 1998 contained data or claims inconsistent with or missing from the body of the article. Error rates ranged from 8% to 18%, although between-journal differences were not significant. Many errors (63%) were unlikely to cause substantive misinterpretations. Unfortunately, 37% of errors found could be seriously misleading with respect to the data or claims presented in the associated article. Although deficient abstracts may be less common in psychology journals than in major medical journals (R. M. Pitkin, M. A. Branagan, & L. F. Burmeister, 1999), there is still cause for concern and need for improvement.