When the going gets tough,what happens to quiet eye? The role of time pressure and performance pressure during basketball free throws

In aiming sport contexts, the quiet eye (QE) - the final ocular fixation before movement initiation - is a crucial perceptual-cognitive skill. Indeed, an extended QE permits athletes to achieve high performances, aiding optimal attentional control, particularly in situations in which athletes are \"under pressure.\" Such situations are common in sport, especially when time runs out, and even just a few points can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Although QE has been widely investigated across several sports and tasks, no previous studies have considered both the role of time pressure and performance pressure on QE. The current study aimed to comprehend the effect of tough sport situations on QE characteristics. Accordingly, we tested basketball players (competitive-élites and semi-élites) in free throw trials, manipulating both the time available to perform the task and the relevance of the performance. The results showed that time pressure and performance pressure impaired QE characteristics, regardless of expertise levels. Also, time pressure led to a decrease in free throw accuracy. Interestingly, the match between task demands and the ability to cope seemed to play a role on QE, especially in the competitive-élite players, with negative QE characteristics (short and late) when task demands exceeded the ability to cope. These findings suggest that QE research and QE training protocols should account for time pressure, performance pressure, and the players' perceived ability to cope with the requested task.     

解释水平视角下的道德判断

道德判断对社会合作有重要意义。近20年来涌现出大量对道德判断的研究。经典的社会直觉模型和双加工模型已经不足以解释所有的研究发现。近年来,解释水平理论为道德判断的研究提供了一个新的视角。通过文献梳理发现,基于解释水平理论的道德判断研究可以分为两难的道德判断研究和一般的道德判断研究。两难的道德判断研究已经有了较为一致的结论,但是一般的道德判断研究还存在争议。解释水平影响道德判断的深层原因可能是通过关注点影响道德判断的标准。未来的研究可以着眼于跨文化研究和深层机制的剖析,为解释水平视角下的道德判断研究提供更多的实验证据,加深人们对道德判断的理解。     

Using a new analysis of the best interests standard to address cultural disputes: Whose data,which values?

Clinicians sometimes disagree about how much to honor surrogates’ deeply held cultural values or traditions when they differ from those of the host country. Such a controversy arose when parents requested a cultural accommodation to let their infant die by withdrawing life saving care. While both the parents and clinicians claimed to be using the Best Interests Standard to decide what to do, they were at an impasse. This standard is analyzed into three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions and used to resolve the question of how much to accommodate cultural preferences and how to treat this infant. The extreme versions of absolutism and relativism are rejected. Properly understood, the Best Interests Standard can serve as a powerful tool in settling disputes about how to make good decisions for those who cannot decide for themselves.     

A reanalysis of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research

Greene and colleagues [Greene, J., Sommerville, B. R., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108.] have revealed an apparent distinction in folk psychology between ‘up close and personal’ and ‘impersonal’ moral dilemmas. Reasoning about these types of dilemmas is purportedly supported by partially dissociable neural systems. However, further investigation of the data supporting this hypothesis indicated that only a small number of stimuli used by Greene et al. are driving the effect originally found. Implications of the apparent distinction initially reported and of other research in the domain of moral psychology are discussed.