FOUR THEORIES OF FILIAL DUTY

Children have special duties to their parents: there are things that we ought to do for our parents, but not for just anyone. Three competing accounts of filial duty appear in the literature: the debt theory, the gratitude theory and the friendship theory. Each is unsatisfactory: each tries to assimilate the moral relationship between parent and child to some independently understood conception of duty, but this relationship is different in structure and content from any that we are likely to share with anyone apart from a parent. A more promising account will concentrate on what is unique about the parent-child relationship. I articulate and defend the 'special goods theory', according to which filial duties arise from the distinctive kinds of goods that healthy parent-child relationships typically involve.     

The Importance of Affective Beliefs and Attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Intention to Increase Physical Activity1

Standard theory of planned behavior (TPB) questions to elicit salient behavioral beliefs may elicit instrumental consequences of behavior, and overlook affective consequences. Two hundred thirteen English adults (35 to 75 years of age) completed a questionnaire that contained closed measures of TPB constructs, and open‐ended questions that asked not only about advantages and disadvantages, but also what respondents would like or enjoy and dislike or hate about being more physically active. Beliefs elicited by affective questions were associated more strongly with a closed affective attitude scale. Beliefs elicited by instrumental questions were associated more strongly with a closed instrumental attitude scale. Closed measures of the standard TPB variables explained 48% of the variance in intention to increase physical activity, while affective attitude explained an additional 11% of the variance. Applications of the TPB should consider affective and not just instrumental determinants of behavior.     

A Framework for Developing Comparable Multilingual Assessments for Minority Populations: Why Context Matters

The assessment of linguistic minorities often involves using multiple language versions of assessments. In these assessments, comparability of scores across language groups is central to valid comparative interpretations. Various frameworks and guidelines describe factors that need to be considered when developing comparable assessments. These frameworks provide limited information in relation to the development of multiple language versions of assessments for assessing linguistic minorities within countries. To this end, we make various suggestions for the types of factors that should be considered when assessing linguistic minorities. Our recommendations are tailored to the particular constraints potentially faced by various jurisdictions tasked with developing multiple language versions of assessments for linguistic minorities. These challenges include having limited financial and staffing resources to develop comparable assessments and having insufficient sample sizes to perform psychometric analyses (e.g., item response theory) to examine comparability. Although we contextualize our study by focusing on linguistic minorities within Canada due to its bilingual status, our findings may also apply to other bilingual and multilingual countries with similar minority/majority contexts.