Correction to: Expanding Nallur’s Landscape of Machine Implemented Ethics

Science and Engineering Ethics - Due to an unfortunate miscommunication with the copy editor an important reference was omitted from this recently published article. The reference that should be...     

Empathic accuracy and cognitions during conflict: An in‐depth analysis of understanding scores

Empathic accuracy research indicates that partners achieve only moderate success at reading each other's thoughts. The current study identifies specific patterns of online thought that contribute to empathic inaccuracy during conflict interactions. Married/cohabiting partners completed a conflict interaction and reported their own thoughts during video‐assisted recall of the interaction, also inferring the thoughts of the other partner. Content analysis of these online thoughts demonstrated a high degree of mindfulness about the process of communication, along with a perspective bias, in which partners tended to construe their own communication as constructive and the other partner's communication as avoidant and confrontational. Specific mind‐reading errors linked to both the thematic content and affective tone of online thought predicted lower overall empathic accuracy.     

Relationship science and the credibility revolution: An introduction to the first part of the special issue

In the past 10 years, the field of relationship science—like many other fields—has been exposed to dramatic changes in how scientists approach the research process. Relationship science has been at the forefront of many recent changes in the field, whether it be high profile replication attempts or broader discussions about how to increase rigor and reproducibility. A major goal of this special issue was to provide an opportunity for relationship scientists to engage with these issues and reforms. The first four articles in this special issue represent a sampling of different approaches relationship researchers have used to enhance the credibility of their work.     

Expanding Nallur's Landscape of Machine Implemented Ethics

Science and Engineering Ethics -     

Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on ‘Honorary’ Authorship

Science and Engineering Ethics - The aim of this paper is to analyze the attitudes and reactions of researchers towards an authorship claim made by a researcher in a position of authority who has...     

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Science and Engineering Ethics - Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship...     

Exploring Human Values in the Design of a Web-Based QoL-Instrument for People with Mental Health Problems: A Value Sensitive Design Approach

Science and Engineering Ethics - Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome measure in mental health care. Currently, QoL is mainly measured with paper and pencil questionnaires. To contribute...     

Why not to be a ‘Thomist’: A Critique of the Bañezian Reconciliation of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

Thomas Osborne has asserted that ‘No one has developed an argument against premotion that works if the distinctions made by the Thomists are granted.' This article attempts to form just such an argument. Specifically, it argues that the Thomistic system – even with the distinctions it relies on having been granted – cannot account for human freedom, at least not in a sense sufficiently strong to sustain human guilt for sin. Further, it argues that the Thomists, by their own clear though tacit admission, acknowledge this insufficiency.     

A note on a very early academic quality ranking by James McKeen Cattell

Academic quality rankings are efforts to rank order colleges and universities or their individual departments in order of their presumed quality, based upon one or more criteria. The earliest such ranking is generally believed to have been published by Raymond M. Hughes in 1925. In actuality, however, the eminent psychologist James McKeen Cattell published one as early as 1910. He did so because he wanted to show the institutions where leading American scientists currently worked and to demonstrate that his home institution, Columbia University, had recently declined in scientific strength.