Not just war: Eisikovits on A Theory of Truces

More work has gone into thinking about the philosophical justifications for starting a just war than bringing political violence to an end. The papers in this special section explore themes in Nir Eisikovits’s groundbreaking book A Theory of Truces and why truces deserve greater philosophical attention. This introduction briefly raises these issues and provides an overview of the papers.     

Community Psychology and Global Climate Change: Introduction to the Special Section

Global climate change is not just a distant environmental or future problem but a crisis that has a clear human face already causing the suffering of millions around the globe. It is an issue of high relevance for community psychologists and the communities we work with but has received little attention within the field of community psychology. This special section is intended to promote more thinking and dialogue on this important topic. Six articles are presented that feature both theoretical consideration and empirical research related to global climate change and related environmental issues.     

Excessive confidence in visually-based estimates

People exhibit excessive confidence in visually-based estimates, which in turn biases decision making. Three experiments support this assertion. Experiment 1 shows a strong impact of presentation format on estimation of proportions. Experiment 2 shows that people rely on these erroneous estimates to make incentive-compatible decisions even when objective information can be easily obtained. Experiment 3 demonstrates that the biased decisions disappear when confidence in visually-based estimates is called into question by the perceived complexity of the stimulus.     

Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior

Employing a die-under-cup paradigm, we study the extent to which people lie when it is transparently clear they cannot be caught. We asked participants to report the outcome of a private die roll and gain money according to their reports. Results suggest that the degree of lying depends on the extent to which self-justifications are available. Specifically, when people are allowed to roll the die three times to ensure its legitimacy, but only the first roll is supposed to “count,” we find evidence that the highest outcome of the three rolls is reported. Eliminating the ability to observe more than one roll reduces lying. Additional results suggest that observing desired counterfactuals, in the form of additional rolls not meant to determine pay, attenuates the degree to which people perceive lies as unethical. People seem to derive value from self-justifications allowing them to lie for money while feeling honest.     

Cheating more when the spoils are split

Four experiments demonstrated that people are more likely to cheat when the benefits of doing so are split with another person, even an anonymous stranger, than when the actor alone captures all of the benefits. In three of the studies, splitting the benefits of over-reporting one’s performance on a task made such over-reporting seem less unethical in the eyes of participants. Mitigated perceptions of the immorality of over-reporting performance mediated the relationship between split spoils and increased over-reporting of performance in Study 3. The studies thus showed that people may be more likely to behave dishonestly for their own benefit if they can point to benefiting others as a mitigating factor for their unethical behavior.     

Reflexivity in Counterspaces Fieldwork

Reflexivity is an important tool for navigating ethically important moments in fieldwork. It may be particularly useful in situations where the researcher has the potential to undermine the conduct of the study and/or the well‐being‐enhancing role of counterspaces. In this article, I explore my use of reflexivity to traverse ethically important moments I encountered while investigating a counterspace for African‐American youth who had been incarcerated. The ethical challenge concerned whether and how to continue this study in light of realizing that I held implicit biases toward the research participants. I describe my process for arriving at a decision and propose key considerations for the use of reflexivity in supporting ethical fieldwork within counterspaces.     

Whose Community are You Working for? A Change Agent Case Study

This article explores the role and responsibility of the community psychologist in creating change that could potentially harm the group they are meant to be in solidarity with. Drawing upon a 2‐year project with a Latinx Student Union at a public middle school in the Pacific Northwest, I examine the ethical dilemmas that arose when powerful stakeholders (school administration) changed the goals and intention of the research project without the consent of the low‐power stakeholders (the students). This narrative seeks to shed light on the dilemmas that come with being an ethical community psychologist (Balcazar, Garate‐Serafini, & Keys, 2004; Nelson, Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001; O'Neill, 1989), how these ethics can be compromised by one's identity, and what it means to work for/with/against one's community when deciding whether to stay with or leave a project.     

For the Good of the Group? Balancing Individual and Collective Risks and Benefits in Community Psychology Research

Balancing risks and benefits is a necessary ethical task for social science researchers. Community psychologists must often consider risks and benefits not just for individual participants, but also for the group, system, or society that those individuals inhabit. Little ethical guidance currently exists for how to navigate this ethical challenge across these multiple levels. In this article, we use a case example of social network research incorporating multiple levels of analysis to identify common risks and benefits and understand their relationship to each other. We conclude by discussing distinctive ethical considerations revealed by this case example.     

Photography and Social Media Use in Community‐Based Participatory Research with Youth: Ethical Considerations

Community‐based participatory researchers increasingly incorporate photography and social media into their work. Despite its relative infancy, social media has created a powerful network that allows individuals to convey messages quickly to a widespread audience. In addition to its potential benefits, the use of social media in research also carries risk, given the fast pace of exchanges, sharing of personal images and ideas in high accessibility, low privacy contexts and continually shifting options and upgrades. This article contributes to the literature examining ethical considerations for photography and social media use in community‐based participatory research. We describe three key ethical dilemmas that we encountered during our participatory photography project with Latina/o youth: (a) use and content of images and risk; (b) incentives and coercion; and (c) social media activity and confidentiality. We provide our responses to these challenges, contextualized in theory and practice, and share lessons learned. We raise the question of how to contend with cultural shifts in boundaries and privacy. We propose that evaluating participant vulnerability versus potential empowerment may be more fitting than the standard approach of assessing risks and benefits. Finally, we recommend upholding the principles of participatory research by co‐producing ethical practices with one's participants.     

Hybrid logic with the difference modality for generalisations of graphs

We discuss recent work generalising the basic hybrid logic with the difference modality to any reasonable notion of transition. This applies equally to both subrelational transitions such as monotone neighbourhood frames or selection function models as well as those with more structure such as Markov chains and alternating temporal frames. We provide a generic canonical cut-free sequent system and a terminating proof-search strategy for the fragment without the difference modality but including the global modality.