Interference with judgements of control and learning as a result of prior exposure to controllable and uncontrollable feedback during concept-learning tasks

Two experiments examined whether exposure to an uncontrollable relationship between an action and its outcome during a nonaversive pretreatment phase would attenuate subsequent ratings of control given to actions emitted by subjects. In Experiment 1, such an interference effect was demonstrated relative to a group that received prior training with a controllable action- outcome relationship, and relative to a group not exposed to any prior relationship. In Experiment 2, these effects were replicated, and interference was also found to occur when learning a maze task. Thus, the effects of helplessness were shown to be quite general, to be produced by a nonaversive induction procedure, and to occur most readily when the current contingency between action and outcome was weakest.     

Improving Arguments for Local Carbon Rights: The Case of Forest-Based Sequestration

Land-based climate mitigation schemes such as REDD+ imply the creation of ‘rights to carbon’ for actions that enhance carbon sinks. In many cases, the legal and normative foundations of such rights are unclear. This article focuses on special rights on the basis of improvement. Considering improvement in relation to carbon sinks requires asking what it means to ‘improve’ an environmental resource. Our answer departs in two significant respects from the standard conception of improvement, namely by reconceiving action in relation to ecosystem services, and accordingly, making the case for a counterfactual baseline to be used to compare an improved and unimproved state. Our modifications potentially allow for a variety of agents to claim special carbon rights on the basis of beneficial interactions with land-based carbon sinks. We give three archetypical examples of agents who may claim pro tanto special rights to carbon based on their interaction with carbon sinks.     

Respect,Religion, and Feminism: Comments on Lori Watson and Christie Hartley,Equal Citizenship and Public Reason: A Feminist Political Liberalism

There is significant disagreement among feminists and liberals about the compatibility between the two doctrines. Political liberalism has come under particular criticism from feminists, who argue that its restricted form of equality is insufficient. In contrast, Lori Watson and Christie Hartley argue that political liberalism can and must be feminist. This article raises three areas of disagreement with Watson and Hartley’s incisive account of feminist political liberalism. First, it argues that an appeal to a comprehensive doctrine can be compatible with respecting others, if that appeal is to the value of equality. Second, it takes issue with Watson and Hartley's defence of religious exemptions to equality law. Third, it argues that political liberalism can be compatible with feminism but that it is not itself adequately feminist. It concludes that political liberalism is not enough for feminists.     

Willingness of Mentally Ill Individuals to Sign Up for a Novel Proposal to Prevent Firearm Suicide

The study goal was to determine whether a significant number of high suicide risk individuals would confidentially put their own names onto a list to prevent future gun purchases. An anonymous written survey was administered in an inpatient psychiatric unit and two outpatient psychiatric clinics at an academic medical center. Two hundred forty individuals were approached to fill out the survey, of whom 200 (83.3%) did so. Forty‐six percent of participants stated that they would put their own name onto the list. This novel suicide prevention proposal, a Do‐Not‐Sell List, would appeal to many people at high risk for suicide.