Lay perspectives on the costs and risks of forgiving

In this study, we directly investigated, for the first time, lay perspectives on the costs and risks of forgiveness (N = 130). Participants described previously experienced situations where forgiveness was costly, from the perspective of a grantor, a recipient, and as a third‐party observer. They also identified occasions when they thought it would be risky to forgive. We employed complementary quantitative and thematic analysis strategies to examine prevailing themes. The vast majority of participants believed forgiveness was risky, with approximately two thirds reporting both actual and vicarious experiences of costly forgiveness. An overarching theme was that power relations are particularly relevant to laypeople when they consider the costs and risks of forgiving.     

Incorporating geographic distance into mate preference research: Necessities and luxuries, 2.0

This study (N = 370) examined mate preferences in men and women using the budget allocation paradigm across traits typically studied and the value placed on geographic proximity or propinquity. Importantly, traditionally studied preferences (i.e., physical attractiveness and social status) were seen as priorities, whereas the novel trait of distance was a luxury, suggesting that people were willing to travel to find a partner who satisfies their more important mate preferences. Men valued a short‐term mate who was close to them more than women did. Prior work on mate preferences was replicated in their context‐specific nature as per evolutionary models of mate choice.     

What IS Wrong with Foundationalism is that it Cannot Solve the Epistemic Regress Problem*

There are many things that could be wrong with foundationalism. For example, some have claimed that a so‐called basic belief cannot be both 1) a reason for non‐basic beliefs and 2) such that it cannot be provided with at least prima facie justification.1 If something is a reason, they say, then that something has to be a proposition (or sufficiently proposition‐like) and if it is a proposition (or sufficiently proposition‐like), then it is the kind of thing that requires a reason in order to be even prima facie justified.2 Another reason that some give for rejecting normative foundationalism is that it leads directly to skepticism.3 There is no way, they claim, to move from so‐called basic propositions (typically given as first person introspective reports) to “external world” propositions by employing normatively acceptable principles of reasoning.4 Still others have thought that the invention of a nonrea‐soned reason was as ad hoc as the invention of an unmoved mover.5     

Have Your Cake and Eat It Too: The Old Principal Principle Reconciled with the New*

David Lewis (1980) proposed the Principal Principle (PP) and a “reformulation” which later on he called ‘OP’(Old Principle). Reacting to his belief that these principles run into trouble, Lewis (1994) concluded that they should be replaced with the New Principle (NP). This conclusion left Lewis uneasy, because he thought that an inverse form of NP is “quite messy”, whereas an inverse form of OP, namely the simple and intuitive PP, is “the key to our concept of chance”. I argue that, even if OP should be discarded, PP need not be. Moreover, far from being messy, an inverse form of NP is a simple and intuitive Conditional Principle (CP). Finally, both PP and CP are special cases of a General Principle (GP); it follows that so are PP and NP, which are thus compatible rather than competing.     

KEEN TO HELP? MANAGERS' IMPLICIT PERSON THEORIES AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYEE COACHING

Although coaching can facilitate employee development and performance, the stark reality is that managers often differ substantially in their inclination to coach their subordinates. To address this issue, we draw from and build upon a body of social psychology research that finds that implicit person theories (IPTs) about the malleability of personal attributes (e.g., personality and ability) affect one's willingness to help others. Specifically, individuals holding an "entity theory" that human attributes are innate and unalterable are disinclined to invest in helping others to develop and improve, relative to individuals who hold the "incremental theory" that personal attributes can be developed. Three studies examined how managers' IPTs influence the extent of their employee coaching. First, a longitudinal field study found that managers' IPTs predicted employee evaluations of their subsequent employee coaching. This finding was replicated in a second field study. Third, an experimental study found that using self-persuasion principles to induce incremental IPTs increased entity theorist managers' willingness to coach a poor performing employee, as well as the quantity and quality of their performance improvement suggestions.     

Relational Drawings in Couple Therapy

In couple therapy sessions, partners often get into long and drawn-out discussions, heavy with pain, resentment, and blame. It is vital for the therapist to avoid becoming entangled in these escalating interactions. In this article, as one way of avoiding these interactions, a protocol is proposed of using relational drawings in couple therapy for opening space for new stories. This approach is strongly rooted in extensive therapeutic experience, as well as in dialogical ideas. Not the content of the partners' imagery is central, but rather the dialogical exchange about the drawings. In particular, the focus of the therapist is on the partners' interactions, their hesitations and their surprises. Working in this way opens space for the partners to reflect on what they experience as crucial in their bond. The protocol is illustrated with two detailed case examples.