La temporalitéy de la perception: A propos de l''Interprétation phénoménologique de la CRP de Kant

Sans résumé     

Anger Mediates the Effects of Fear on Support for the Far Right—A Rejoinder

We are grateful to John Jost for carefully engaging with our work and presenting a different interpretation of our findings on the effects of fear and anger stemming from the November 13, 2015, Paris attacks on the propensity to vote for the far right. Jost advances a model that holds that anger mediates the effect of fear on support for the far right. In this rejoinder, we respond to the issues he raises regarding our model specification, consider his alternative suggestion, and offer some conclusions about how to resolve this debate empirically. We hope this exchange advances the literature on the impact of various societal threats on voting for the far right.     

System Justification and Affective Responses to Terrorism: Evidence from the November 2015 Paris Attacks

A large stream of research has shown that emotional reactions have a powerful impact on political choices and decision-making processes. Yet little is known about individual-level differences in experiencing specific emotions in the light of threatening events. In this article, we argue that system justification, or the endorsement and bolstering of existing social and political arrangements, is positively associated with the experience of positive emotions and negatively associated with the experience of negative emotions in the light of threat. We test our hypotheses using a study conducted a few days after the November 13, 2015, Paris terror attacks on a large sample in France. Our results show that system justification was positively associated with experiencing hope in the light of the attacks and negatively associated with experiencing fear and anger. Moreover, the size of these effects exceeded the respective size of other psychological characteristics such as authoritarianism, conservatism, and national attachment. These findings extend research on the palliative function of system justification to the domain of emotional responses to terrorist shocks.     

The influence of cancer impact on patients’ preparatory grief

The aims of this study were to investigate the preparatory grief and traumatic distress in advanced cancer patients in a palliative care unit. A total of 94 advanced cancer patients completed the Preparatory Grief in Advanced Cancer Patients (PGAC) scale and the Greek version of the Impact of Events Scale- Revised (IES-R-Gr). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group was used to measure patients’ performance status. Statistically significant associations were found between PGAC, patients’ performance status, and all the IES-R-Gr scales (avoidance, intrusion, hyperarousal) and IES-R-Gr total score. The multiple regression analysis revealed that preparatory grief was predicted by patients’ young age, poor performance status, as well as by their high levels of intrusion and hyperarousal, in a model explaining 51.5% of the total variance. Concluding, in advanced cancer patients, preparatory grief is significantly correlated with the impact of cancer and patients’ physical condition, and seems to be influenced by components of the event impact, patients’ age, and physical performance.     

Towards Automating Decision Aiding Through Argumentation

Decision aiding can be abstractly described as the process of assisting a user/client/decision maker by recommending possible courses of his action. This process has to be able to cope with incomplete and/or inconsistent information and must adapt to the dynamics of the environment in which it is carried out. Indeed, on the one hand, complete information about the environment is almost impossible, and on the other hand, the information provided by the user is often affected by uncertainty; it may contains inconsistencies and may dynamically be revised because of various reasons. The aim of this paper is to present a model of the decision aiding process that is amenable to automation. The main features of the approach is that it models decision aiding as an iterative defeasible reasoning process, and it uses argumentation for capturing important aspects of the process. More specifically, argumentation is used for representing the relations between the cognitive artefacts that are involved in decision aiding, as well as for modelling the artefacts themselves. In modelling the cognitive artefacts, we make use of the notion of argument schemes and specify the related critical questions. More specifically, the work reported here aims at initiating a systematic study of the use of argumentation in future decision aiding tools. Our ambition is twofold: (i) enhance decision support capabilities of an analyst representing explicitly and accountably the reasons for which he recommend a solution for a decision maker and (ii) enhance decision support capabilities of an (semi) automatic device to handle (at least partially) the dialogue with the user. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Applying the Theory of Affective Intelligence to Support for Authoritarian Policies and Parties

Emotion, after a long period of inattention, began to attract greater scrutiny as a key driver of human behavior in the mid‐1980s. One approach that has achieved significant influence in political science is affective intelligence theory (AIT). We deploy AIT here to begin to understand the recent rise in support for right‐wing populist leaders around the globe. In particular, we focus on specific emotional appraisals on elections held at periods of heightened threat, including the two 2015 terror attacks in France, as influences on support for the far‐right Front National among conservatives. Contrary to much conventional wisdom, we speculate that threats can generate both anger and fear, and with very different political consequences. We expect fear to inhibit reliance on extant political dispositions such as ideological identification and authoritarianism, while anger will strengthen the influence of these same dispositions. Our core findings, across repeated tests, show that fear and anger indeed differentially condition the way habits of thought and action influence support for the far right in the current historical moment. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is anger that mobilizes the far right and authoritarians. Fear, on the other hand, diminishes the impact of these same dispositions.     

The visual influence of ostracism

Reflecting the fundamental human need to establish and maintain positive connections with others, it has been suggested that an Ostracism Detection System is sensitized to targets by which one has been ostracized. Evidence supporting the operation of this system has yet to be provided, however. Accordingly, using binocular rivalry to explore attentional processing, here, we considered the extent to which targets previously associated with ostracism dominate visual awareness. Participants initially performed a virtual ball‐tossing game (i.e., Cyberball) in which they were “ostracized” or “included” by the other players. Afterwards, the faces of these players were presented together with houses in a binocular rivalry task. The results revealed that targets associated with ostracism (vs. inclusion) dominated longest in visual awareness.     

Realization for Causal Nondeterministic Input-Output Systems

There are two well-developed formalizations of discrete time dynamic systems that evidently share many concerns but suffer from a lack of mutual awareness. One formalization is classical systems and automata theory. The other is the logic of actions in which the situation and event calculi are the strongest representatives. Researchers in artificial intelligence are likely to be familiar with the latter but not the former. This is unfortunate, for systems and automata theory have much to offer by way of insight into problems raised in the logics of action. This paper is an outline of how the input-output view of systems and its associated solution of state realization may be applied to the formalization of dynamics that uses a situation calculus approach. In particular, because the latter usually admits incompletely specified dynamics, which induces a non-deterministic input-output system behavior, we first show that classical state realization can still be achieved if the behavior is causal. This is a novel systems-theoretic result. Then we proceed to indicate how situation calculi dynamic specifications can be understood in systems-theoretic terms, and how automata can be viewed as models of such specifications. As techniques for reasoning about automata are abundant, this will provide yet more tools for reasoning about actions.     

Does System Justification Promote Establishment Voting? Mainstream Politics in France,Germany, and the United Kingdom

Throughout Europe and North America, mainstream political parties have ceded electoral support to antiestablishment parties from the far left and far right. We investigate the hypothesis that individual differences in system justification—the psychological tendency to defend and justify the overarching social system—would be negatively associated with antiestablishment voting, even among citizens who would otherwise be inclined to support radicalism. In three large, nationally representative surveys conducted in France (N = 14,432), Germany (N = 1,168), and the United Kingdom (N = 2,337), we observed that system justification was positively associated with voting for establishment parties and negatively associated with antiestablishment voting. System justification was associated with reduced support for antiestablishment parties on the right and left—even among respondents who were high on ethnic intolerance, opposition to the European Union, economic distress, and support for income redistribution. Thus, all other things being equal, system-justification tendencies reinforce political moderation, establishment voting, and therefore social stability.