Cross-modal validation of the Leipzig Affective Norms for German (LANG)

Affective stimuli are increasingly used in emotion research. Typically, stimuli are selected from databases providing affective norms. The validity of these norms is a critical factor with regard to the applicability of the stimuli for emotion research. We therefore probed the validity of the Leipzig Affective Norms for German (LANG) by correlating valence and arousal ratings across different sensory modalities. A sample of 120 words was selected from the LANG database, and auditory recordings of these words were obtained from two professional actors. The auditory stimuli were then rated again for valence and arousal. This cross-modal validation approach yielded very high correlations between auditory and visual ratings (>.95). These data confirm the strong validity of the Leipzig Affective Norms for German and encourage their use in emotion research.     

What is smart in a social dilemma? differential effects of priming competence on cooperation

Prior theorizing of rationality in social dilemmas suggests that individuals pursuing different interaction goals may ‘perceive’ different associations between competence and behaviour in a social dilemma, arguing that competitive individuals associate competence with noncooperation (i.e. noncooperation=smart), whereas prosocial individuals associate competence with cooperation (i.e. cooperation=smart; goal‐prescribes‐rationality principle, Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994). The present research examines whether cooperative interaction can be affected by subtle activation (or priming) of competence, and whether the effects may differ for competitive versus prosocial participants. Consistent with hypotheses, two experiments revealed that priming competence yielded reduced levels of cooperation (and greater exploitation) among competitors, and yielded no effects (Experiment 1) or a tendency towards enhanced cooperation (Experiment 2) among prosocials. The discussion considers theoretical implications of relatively subtle influences on cooperative interaction in social dilemmas. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the Limits of Parental Proxy Consent: Children's Right to Non-Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research

This paper considers what are the appropriate limits of parental or guardian proxy consent for a child's participation in medical or social science research. Such proxy consent, it is proposed, is invalid in regards “non-therapeutic research.” The latter research may add to scientific knowledge and/or benefit others, but any benefit to the child research participant is but a coincidental theoretical possibility and not a primary objective. Research involving children, without intended and acceptable prospect of beneficial outcome to the individual participant, even if with negligible risk, does not meet the test for “best interests.” Proxy consent for children's involvement in research is justifiable only when given for and on behalf of the child in his or her best interest to enhance the child's well-being. Only in the latter case is the parental proxy consent situation analogous in regards key criteria to a competent individual consenting to research participation. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Enter your e-mail address: how German Internet users manage their e-mail addresses.

Writing E-mail is the most popular Internet activity. Meanwhile, many people have more than one E-mail address. The question how people manage their E-mail addresses, more specifically, whether they use them deliberately for different purposes, is the central question of this paper. E-mail addresses vary in the amount of identifying information they convey (e.g., name, gender, status). It is proposed that the amount of identifying information an email address contains is a predictor of usage for a specific purpose. However, it is assumed that not all people choose email addresses in a rational way, according to the optimal fit between amount of identifying information and purpose of the E-mail. Thus, the role of other factors is tested as well. An online survey on German Internet users showed that it is common to have more than one E-mail address. Especially free webmail addresses (freemail) are extremely popular. People used more anonymous E-mail addresses when they expected spam or were concerned about privacy. However, there were also interindividual differences in the management of E-mail addresses.     

Self-activation is a two-edged sword: The effects of I primes on cooperation

Two studies examined the influence of I primes on cooperative behavior. Two contrasting hypotheses were tested, using prosocial allocations (Experiment 1) and behavior in a give-some dilemma (Experiment 2) as dependent variables and assessing subjects’ social value orientation. The self-activation hypothesis (Verplanken & Holland, 2002) predicts that social value orientation influences behavior to a stronger degree when activated. That is, proselfs should behave less cooperatively, whereas prosocials should behave even more cooperatively in an I prime condition. The independent self-construal hypothesis (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999) predicts a stronger concern for one’s own outcome and less cooperative behavior for individuals with an activated independent self-construal. In both studies an interaction between priming and social value orientation occurred, supporting the self-activation hypothesis. Implications for the importance of social cognitive processes underlying cooperative behavior, as well as, implications for research on independent vs interdependent self-construals are discussed.     

Dynamic Epistemic Logics of Diffusion and Prediction in Social Networks

Studia Logica - We take a logical approach to threshold models, used to study the diffusion of opinions, new technologies, infections, or behaviors in social networks. Threshold models consist of a...     

Ethical Issues in Cancer Genetics: 1) Whose Information Is It?

This article presents and discusses four clinical cases that exemplify the complexity of ethical dilemmas concerning the provider's obligation to disclose or withhold genetic information from patients. Case 1: What is the responsibility of the cancer genetics provider to ensure that a positive test results is shared with distant relatives? Case 2: To ensure that results go to at-risk relatives, do we have the right to ignore the wishes of the designated next-of-kin? Case 3: Do we have the right to reveal a familial BRCA1 mutation to a patient's relative, who is at 50% risk? Case 4: Do we have an obligation to reveal that a patient is not a blood relative and therefore, not at risk to have inherited a familial mutation? These cases form the basis for discussing the provider's dual obligations to keeping patient confidentiality and informing patients and families about risk (i.e. duty to warn). We also provide a summary of consensus points and additional discussion questions for each case.