Child abuse and neglect by parents with disabilities: A tale of two families

Two families, in which the children had been placed in foster care due to abuse and neglect by parents who had disabilities, were studied. In the first case, the mother was instructed in skills that our assessment suggested were important for her child's survival. The mother readily acquired and applied these skills, a fact reflected both in changes in her behavior and in changes in the child's well-being. In the second case, the parent's incremental resumption of child custody was made contingent upon completion of relevant parenting tasks. Initially, improvements in the completion of such tasks were evident, but over time and with the onset of militating factors, no further progress was made and all parental rights were terminated. The implications of these cases for behavior analysis and the effort to reunite and preserve families are discussed.     

A stochastic multidimensional scaling procedure for the empirical determination of convex indifference curves for preference/choice analysis

The vast majority of existing multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedures devised for the analysis of paired comparison preference/choice judgments are typically based on either scalar product (i.e., vector) or unfolding (i.e., ideal-point) models. Such methods tend to ignore many of the essential components of microeconomic theory including convex indifference curves, constrained utility maximization, demand functions, et cetera. This paper presents a new stochastic MDS procedure called MICROSCALE that attempts to operationalize many of these traditional microeconomic concepts. First, we briefly review several existing MDS models that operate on paired comparisons data, noting the particular nature of the utility functions implied by each class of models. These utility assumptions are then directly contrasted to those of microeconomic theory. The new maximum likelihood based procedure, MICROSCALE, is presented, as well as the technical details of the estimation procedure. The results of a Monte Carlo analysis investigating the performance of the algorithm as a number of model, data, and error factors are experimentally manipulated are provided. Finally, an illustration in consumer psychology concerning a convenience sample of thirty consumers providing paired comparisons judgments for some fourteen brands of over-the-counter analgesics is discussed.     

The design and evaluation of a worksharing system for experimental group living

Failure to share household chores equitably may be a major cause of the high failure rate of experimental group-living arrangements. A behavioral approach to worksharing based on a point system was implemented in one experimental group and its most important components experimentally evaluated. Experiment I showed that awarding credits produced more work than not awarding credits. Experiment II showed that making credits contingent on the outcome of a detailed inspection produced more work than awarding credits noncontingently. Experiment III demonstrated that awarding rent reductions contingent on credit earnings produced more work than awarding rent reductions noncontingently. Other evaluative data suggest that the resulting living arrangement is cheaper, more effective, and more satisfactory to the residents when compared to the most popular alternative living arrangements.     

A maximum likelihood method for latent class regression involving a censored dependent variable

The standard tobit or censored regression model is typically utilized for regression analysis when the dependent variable is censored. This model is generalized by developing a conditional mixture, maximum likelihood method for latent class censored regression. The proposed method simultaneously estimates separate regression functions and subject membership in K latent classes or groups given a censored dependent variable for a cross-section of subjects. Maximum likelihood estimates are obtained using an EM algorithm. The proposed method is illustrated via a consumer psychology application.     

Excellence‐Prior Eudaimonism

Eudaimonism is often regarded as egoistic. If it recommends that agents pursue their own good because it is their own good, it is guilty as charged. But excellence‐prior eudaimonism offers a non‐egoistic alternative to this welfare‐prior eudaimonism. Excellence‐prior eudaimonism recommends that an agent live in a way that is in fact good for the agent, but it does not regard the agent’s own good as necessarily that for the sake of which the agent acts, nor does it regard living well as justified by the fact that it is good for the agent, but simply because it is good. The Christian eudaimonisms of Augustine and Aquinas are best understood as deepened forms of excellence‐prior eudaimonism.     

Local Solidarity

In this article I am particularly interested in the question of solidarity within the boundaries of one's own country. I discuss a qualified beneficence requirement, which claims that we ought to prevent something very bad from happening if it is in our power and if we can do it without sacrificing anything morally significant. I also discuss a fair-share principle, according to which, in Liam B. Murphy's version, "the sacrifice each agent is required to make is limited to the level of sacrifice that would be optimal if the situation were one of full compliance". I argue that the qualified beneficence requirement is reasonable only in the proximity of the one who needs help. When there is no proximity we ought to be guided by a fair-share principle. I also argue that there is an intimate relation between the fair-share principle and the welfare-state ideology.     

Welfare Rights

The article tries to qualify the contentious issue of whetherthere is a human right to welfare. Our notion of human rightsis practically without criteria for distinguishing between whenit is used correctly and when incorrectly. The first step inany satisfactory resolution of the issue about welfare rightsis to supply duly determinate criteria. I then consider thechief reasons for doubting that there is a human right towelfare, in the light of what seem to be, all things considered,the best criteria to attach to the notion of a human right.     

The Harm Principle

According to the Harm Principle, roughly, the state may coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others. Clearly, this principle depends crucially on what we understand by harm. Thus, if any sort of negative effect on a person may count as a harm, the Harm Principle will fail to sufficiently protect individual liberty. Therefore, a more subtle concept of harm is needed. I consider various possible conceptions and argue that none gives rise to a plausible version of the Harm Principle. Whether we focus on welfare, quantities of welfare or qualities of welfare, we do not arrive at a plausible version of this principle. Instead, the concept of harm may be moralized. I consider various ways this may be done as well as possible rationales for the resulting versions of the Harm Principle. Again, no plausible version of the principle turns up. I also consider the prospect of including the Harm Principle in a decision-procedure rather than in a criterion of rightness. Finally, in light of my negative appraisal, I briefly discuss why this principle has seemed so appealing to liberals.