Is Unpleasantness Intrinsic to Unpleasant Experiences?

Philosophical Studies -     

The Relationship Between SME Job Experience and Job Analysis Ratings: Findings with and without Statistical Control

This investigation examined the relationship between SME job experience and job analysis ratings. Managerial job incumbents (N = 209) provided job analysis ratings which measured 9 task frequency and 6 skill importance components. Job experience was operationalized as both job tenure and residualized job tenure (i.e., statistically-controlled for SME characteristics correlated with job tenure). Respondents were categorized into low, medium, and high groups for each tenure measure. MANOVA results indicated that task ratings differed across residualized tenure groups, while skill ratings did not. Statistical control of the job tenure measure made a substantial difference in results. For the non-residualized tenure groups, findings were reversed: skill ratings differed across non-residualized tenure groups, while task ratings did not. The results of this research are integrated with the existing literature and implications for future research and practice are offered.     

Special perspective: An immodest proposal: should treating mental health professionals be barred from testifying about their patients?

Notwithstanding ethical rules that address therapeutic and forensic role conflicts for psychologists and psychiatrists, overzealous patient advocacy by therapists, tightened reimbursement for therapy, and a growth market for forensic psychology and psychiatry, have led many therapists to appear willingly as forensic experts on behalf of their patients. Existing ethical rules, as well as other proposed approaches to address this problem, assume that it can be resolved by modest changes in existing practice that permit therapists to testify as long as their testimony avoids psycholegal opinions. This essay questions whether these modest changes can adequately address this problem and advances consideration of a more radical proposal to address this problem, prohibiting therapists from testifying about their patients. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Associative priming and conflict differentially affect two processes underlying cognitive control: Evidence from reaching behavior

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - Previous research has indicated that two components of reaching behavior, initiation time and reach curvature, exhibit distinct patterns of trial sequence...     

Associations of Emotional Abuse Types With Suicide Ideation Among Dating Couples

Numerous studies have demonstrated that coercive control is more strongly associated with suicidal ideation than other forms of intimate partner violence. However, a majority of these studies focused on samples of help-seeking women. This study examined whether coercive control remains the form of intimate partner violence most strongly associated with suicidal ideation within a sample of nonclinical dating couples. This cross-sectional, survey study on 104 dating couples examined the associations of coercive control (i.e., dominance/intimidation and restrictive engulfment) with suicidal ideation, while controlling for other forms of emotional abuse (i.e., hostile withdrawal and denigration), physical assault, and depressive symptoms. As expected, dominance/intimidation and depressive symptoms, but not denigration and physical assault, were associated with suicidal ideation. Contrary to our hypothesis, hostile withdrawal, but not restrictive engulfment, was associated with suicidal ideation. This study suggests that dominance/intimidation and hostile withdrawal are forms of emotional abuse that are pertinent to suicidal ideation in nonclinical dating couples.     

Neural correlates of conventional and harm/welfare-based moral decision-making

The degree to which social norms are processed by a unitary system or dissociable systems remains debated. Much research on children’s social-cognitive judgments has supported the distinction between “moral” (harm/welfare-based) and “conventional” norms. However, the extent to which these norms are processed by dissociable neural systems remains unclear. To address this issue, 23 healthy participants were scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they rated the wrongness of harm/welfare-based and conventional transgressions and neutral vignettes. Activation significantly greater than the neutral vignette baseline was observed in regions implicated in decision-making regions including rostral/ventral medial frontal, anterior insula and dorsomedial frontal cortices when evaluating both harm/welfare-based and social-conventional transgressions. Greater activation when rating harm/welfare-based relative to social-conventional transgressions was seen through much of ACC and bilateral inferior frontal gyrus. Greater activation was observed in superior temporal gyrus, bilateral middle temporal gyrus, left PCC, and temporal-parietal junction when rating social-conventional transgressions relative to harm/welfare-based transgressions. These data suggest that decisions regarding the wrongness of actions, irrespective of whether they involve care/harm-based or conventional transgressions, recruit regions generally implicated in affect-based decision-making. However, there is neural differentiation between harm/welfare-based and conventional transgressions. This may reflect the particular importance of processing the intent of transgressors of conventional norms and perhaps the greater emotional content or salience of harm/welfare-based transgressions.     

When Will a Consequentialist Push You in Front of a Trolley?

As the trolley problem runs its course, consequentialists tend to adopt one of two strategies: (a) silently take comfort in the fact that deontological rivals face their own enduring difficulties, or (b) appeal to cognitive psychology to discredit the deontological intuitions on which the trolley problem depends. I refer to the first strategy as silent schadenfreude and the second as debunking attack. My aim in this paper is to argue that consequentialists ought to reject both strategies and instead opt for what I call robust advantage. This strategy emphasizes the intricate calculations that consequentialists employ to defend against objections based on friendship and integrity. I argue that these calculations offer consequentialism an explanatory advantage over deontology in the context of the trolley problem. It requires striking a delicate balance between deeply internalized dispositions to avoid causing harm and a context-sensitive ability to prevent disasters; however, empirical data help consequentialism on this front by illustrating that the integration of separate cognitive functions is an ordinary part of human psychology.