Some thoughts on essence placeholders, interactionism, and heritability: reply to Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011)

In the target article (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011), we provided a social-cognitive framework which identified genetic essentialist biases and their implications. In their commentaries, Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011) indicated their general agreement with this framework but highlighted some important points for consideration. Haslam suggested that neuroessentialism is a comparable kind of essentialist bias and identified similarities with the genetic essentialism framework. In response, we acknowledge similarities but also identify qualitative and quantitative differences between genetic essentialism and other kinds of essentialist biases. Turkheimer challenged us to extend our discussion to address the question of how should people respond to genetic etiological information, critiqued the use of heritability coefficients, and identified a new construct (1 - rMZ), which may be termed a free-will coefficient. In response, we emphasize the need to transform interactionist explanations from being empty platitudes to becoming the default conceptual framework; we wholeheartedly accept his critical view of heritability coefficient estimates (but acknowledge a more limited utility for them); and we are intrigued by his conceptual interest in identifying free-will coefficients yet warn against falling into pitfalls similar to those that were stumbled into in the past.     

A Unified Empirical Account of Responsibility Judgments*

Skeptical worries about moral responsibility seem to be widely appreciated and deeply felt. To address these worries—if nothing else to show that they are mistaken—theories of moral responsibility need to relate to whatever concept of responsibility underlies the worries. Unfortunately, the nature of that concept has proved hard to pin down. Not only do philosophers have conflicting intuitions; numerous recent empirical studies have suggested that both prosaic responsibility judgments and incompatibilist intuitions among the folk are influenced by a number of surprising factors, sometimes prompting apparently contradictory judgments. In this paper, we show how an independently motivated hypothesis about responsibility judgments provides a unified explanation of the more important results from these studies. According to this ‘Explanation Hypothesis’, to take an agent to be morally responsible for an event is to take a relevant motivational structure of the agent to be part of a significant explanation of the event. We argue that because of how explanatory interests and perspectives affect what we take as significant explanations, this analysis accounts for the puzzling variety of empirical results. If this is correct, the Explanation Hypothesis also provides a new way of understanding debates about moral responsibility.     

Self–enhancement in Japan? A reply to Brown & Kobayashi

Brown and Kobayashi provide some evidence that Japanese enhance themselves and group members in the self–other paradigm, especially for important traits. However, their conclusions are drawn from a highly selective review of the literature. In their paper they raise four distinct hypotheses: Japanese self–enhance, Japanese self–enhance as much as North Americans, Japanese self–enhance more for important traits, and Japanese enhance their groups. An evaluation of each of these four hypotheses with respect to all of the relevant empirical evidence reveals that they are all poorly supported and, in some cases, are directly contradicted.     

Meta‐analysis of behavioral self‐management techniques used by students with disabilities in inclusive settings

This comprehensive review synthesizes findings from 29 studies in which students with disabilities utilized behavioral self‐management techniques in inclusive settings. Findings suggest that consistent with 2 earlier reviews of these types of studies, most behavioral self‐management techniques continue to be adaptable in inclusive settings with moderate to strong efficacy. This review identifies strengths as well common limitations of the studies, provides recommendations for future research and practice, and includes behavioral self‐management resources.     

Do birds of a feather universally flock together? Cultural variation in the similarity‐attraction effect

Three experiments explored the similarity‐attraction effect (SAE) among North American and Japanese samples. In all studies, North Americans showed a significantly more pronounced SAE than the Japanese. The North Americans consistently revealed a strong SAE whereas the Japanese effect was only significant in the methods with the most power. The cultural differences emerged across different methods, and for the domains of personality, activities, attitudes and demographics. The cultural difference was mediated by self‐esteem, indicating that a motivation for positive self‐views is a mechanism underlying the SAE.     

Where is the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement? A reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003)

C. Sedikides, L. Gaertner, and Y. Toguchi (2003) maintained that the self-enhancement motivation (as defined by tendencies to view oneself in overly positive terms) is universal. The present article challenges their claim. A review of the literature revealed that many studies contradict their findings regarding the domain-specific nature of East Asian self-enhancement. It is argued that Sedikides et al. did not replicate past research because they did not measure self-enhancement in their studies. The present article provides a theoretical basis for understanding cross-cultural differences in self-enhancement and considers the question of universality by exploring 2 different conceptualizations of positive self-regard.     

Divergent consequences of success and failure in japan and north america: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves

Self-enhancing and self-improving motivations were investigated across cultures. Replicating past research, North Americans who failed on a task persisted less on a follow-up task than those who succeeded. In contrast, Japanese who failed persisted more than those who succeeded. The Japanese pattern is evidence for a self-improving orientation: Failures highlight where corrective efforts are needed. Japanese who failed also enhanced the importance and the diagnosticity of the task compared with those who succeeded, whereas North Americans did the opposite. Study 2 revealed that self-improving motivations are specific to the tasks on which one receives feedback. Study 3 unpackaged the cultural differences by demonstrating that they are due, at least in part, to divergent lay theories regarding the utility of effort. Study 4 addressed the problem of comparing cultures on subjective Likert scales and replicated the findings with a different measure.