Why Should I Respect You? A Critique and a Suggestion for the Justification of Mutual Respect in Contractualism

Contractualism is a normative theory which characterizes principles of right in terms of the idea of mutual respect. In this theory, mutual respect is regarded as having deliberative priority over other values. This essay aims to examine how contractualists can provide a satisfactory justification for prioritizing mutual respect. I will argue that the “value of mutual respect argument,” which is a justification commonly adopted by contractualists, is inadequate because an unconditional priority of mutual respect cannot be grounded on the desirability of a relationship of mutual respect. Then, I will suggest that a “consistency argument” can provide a better justification of why the idea of mutual respect should have priority. Mutual respect is of special importance, not because it is highly desirable, but rather because it is required by an a priori guiding principle of consistency. Individuals become inconsistent if they ask others to respect them as reason-assessing individuals, while at the same time refusing to respect others in the same way.     

Audience Design in Multiparty Conversation

How do speakers design what they say in order to communicate effectively with groups of addressees who vary in their background knowledge of the topic at hand? Prior findings indicate that when a speaker addresses a pair of listeners with discrepant knowledge, that speakers Aim Low, designing their utterances for the least knowledgeable of the two addressees. Here, we test the hypothesis that speakers will depart from an Aim Low approach in order to efficiently communicate with larger groups of interacting partners. Further, we ask whether the cognitive demands of tracking multiple conversational partners' perspectives places limitations on successful audience design. We find that speakers can successfully track information about what up to four of their partners do and do not know in conversation. When addressing groups of 3–4 addressees at once, speakers design language based on the combined knowledge of the group. These findings point to an audience design process that simultaneously represents the perspectives of multiple other individuals and combines these representations in order to design utterances that strike a balance between the different needs of the individuals within the group.     

Robust interactive decision-analysis (RID): Behavioral results and implications

We have proposed a novel interactive procedure for performing decision analysis, called Robust Interactive Decision Analysis (RID), which permits a decision maker (DM) to voluntarily and interactively express strong (viz, sure) binary preferences for actions, partial decision functions, and full decision functions, and only imprecise probability and utility function assessments. These serve as INPUTS TO operators to prune the state probability space and decision space until an optimal choice strategy is obtained. The viability of the RID approach depends on a DM's ability to provide such information consistently and meaningfully. On a limited scale we experimentally investigate the behavioral implications of the RID method in order to ascertain its potential operational feasibility and viability. More specifically, we examine whether a DM can (1) express strong preferences between pairs of vectors of unconditional and conditional payoffs or utilities consistently; (2) provide imprecise (ordinal and interval) state probabilities that are individually as well as mutually consistent with the state probabilities imputed from the expressed strong preferences. The results show that a DM can provide strong individually and mutually consistent preference and ordinal probability information. Moreover, most individuals also appear to be able to provide interval probabilities that are individually and mutually consistent with their strong preference inputs. However, the several violations observed, our small sample size, and the limited scope of our investigation suggest that further experimentation is needed to determine whether and/or how such inputs should be elicited. Overall, the results indicate that the RID method is behaviorally viable.     

The myth of regaining control: Ostracism increases superstitious tendencies

Whether and how interpersonal experiences predispose people to show superstitious tendencies have been largely unexamined by past studies. By adopting a multimethod approach, three studies tested (a) whether ostracism increases superstitious tendencies through thwarted perceived control, (b) whether the dispositional need for closure moderates the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies and (c) whether restoring ostracized people's thwarted control weakens their superstitious tendencies. The results revealed that ostracized participants had higher superstitious tendencies than nonostracized participants did (Studies 1–3). Moreover, thwarted control mediated the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies (Study 2). In addition, the dispositional need for closure moderated the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies, such that the effect was stronger among participants with a high need for closure (Studies 1–2). Finally, restoring ostracized participants' perceived control weakened the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies (Study 3). Altogether, these findings feature the essential role of thwarted perceived control in understanding the link between ostracism and superstitious tendencies and the implication of control restoration in weakening the link. They also highlight the importance of dispositional characteristics in moderating people's responses to superstitions following ostracism and related forms of interpersonal maltreatment.     

Infantile handling and sex as determinants of the negative reinforcing effects of gentling

Summary BD IX rats were trained to avoid a black and white compartment which was associated with gentling. The rats were given 12 acquisition sessions in which they were stroked if they remained in the critical compartment at the end of the fifteen 20-sec intervals during the 5-min test period. The results indicated that the negative reinforcing effects of gentling were a function of the early handling history and sex of the rat.This research was aided by Grant APA-247 from the National Research Council of Canada. The author thanks David Wood for his active collaboration in conducting the experiment.     

Infantile handling and the extinction of responses acquired under food reward

A comparison was made of the runway behaviour of rats which had been handled from Days 1-21 and their non-handled litter mates. The training began on Day 70 after the animals were habituated to a restricted food schedule for 10 days. The subjects were given six trials each day in the runway and were rewarded with a 0.045 g. Noyes pellet. After 10 days of rewarded training trials, subjects were given 6 extinction trials a day for 10 days. Results showed that handled rats ran faster than non-handled rats during acquisition and during the first 3 days of extinction. The extinction data suggested that the relationship between emotionality and effects of frustrative non-reward should be re-evaluated.     

A further validation of the bem sex role inventory: A multitrait-multimethod study

The present study used a multitrait-multimethod technique [D.T. Campbell and D. W. Fiske (1959) “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105] to examine Bem's [(1974) “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 152–162] use of an instrumental-expressive dichotomy to conceptualize the Masculinity and Femininity scales of the Bem Sex Role Inventory as statistically orthogonal constructs. Results indicate that while perhaps reliable, masculinity and femininity lack clear convergent and discriminant validity. Therefore, Bem's contention that masculinity and femininity are orthogonal constructs is questioned. Results are discussed in light of trait- vs. method-driven research.