RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: A HUMAN DISTINCTIVE?

While agent responsibility appears to be one of the clearest examples of a human distinctive, practices of holding responsible are bound up with social expectations and emotional reactions, many of which are shared with other social animals. This essay attends to the ways in which what Peter Strawson first identified as the reactive emotions, including notably anger, resentment, and indignation, are key to making sense of both the shared and distinctive features of responsible human agency. Like human beings, other social animals express a range of reactive emotions in response to others’ conformity with or violation of implicit social expectations and norms; human beings sometimes reflect on these reactive attitudes and their justifiability, asking whether and when it is appropriate to hold others accountable, blame, and/or punish them. We should recognize that we often praise and blame others for attitudes and desires which they have not chosen and over which they have no direct control, and that this is appropriate.     

Accountability Forces in Performance Appraisal: Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Normative Information, and Task Performance

This study investigated the effects of self-appraisal information, normative information, and task performance on performance appraisal ratings. Participants rated a fictitious subordinate's performance on a clerical task (which was either very good or moderately poor) subsequent to receiving self-assessment information (high or low) and normative information (present or absent). Self-appraisals affected performance ratings for poor performers but not for good performers, suggesting that judges are more motivated to please ratees than they are merely to adopt the subordinate's view of their own performance. Furthermore, objective normative information had greater influence than self-appraisals on performance ratings, suggesting that information source credibility has more influence than felt accountability on performance appraisals. Implications of the findings for organizations were discussed.     

Individual and institutional conflict of interest: policy review by research universities in the United States

This paper is a discussion of efforts to manage real and potential conflicts of interest in university research in the United States. The focus is on the report by an Association of American Universities (AAU) task force that addresses both individual and institutional conflict of interest issues. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.     

The Curriculum as a Standard of Public Education

This contribution first searches for historical and empirical evidence for whether and how curricula act or acted as a measure of public education. The problem is explicated on account of a short history of curriculum work and distinguished in a analytical, a political, programmatical and practical discourse of curriculum work. Curriculum work always underlies premises of planning, learning and effects. Three models are finally developed and brought in touch with the different discourses. Curriculum work proves to be an attempt to make publicly acceptable the empirically impossible accountability of schools.     

Causal Relationships among Self-Concept,Attributions, and Achievement in Filipino Students

Abstract

Path-analytic models linking measures of self-concept, attributions, and grades of 194 Filipino high school students were examined. Attributions for successful outcomes to ability or effort were found to mediate the causal relationship between achievement and self-esteem within specific areas of academic content. Negative paths leading from ability attributions for success in math to reading self-concept and for success in reading to math self-concept were interpreted to reflect the simultaneous operation of internal and external frames of reference (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985).     

美国医师的职责

在此讨论的主要问题是,什么样的社会力量能使医师对诊治病人和技术操作的质量担负起责任？这种社会力量的来源之一是职业理念;另一种约束力来自于正规社会机构的直接管理,相关权限的依据是国家和地区规范医院和医师行为的法律。第三种规范的形式和政府司法部门紧密相关,它在很大程度上是一种间接性的约束力,涉及病人因医疗事故对医生及其投保的责任保险公司所进行的索赔和诉讼。强调了第三种力量,并突出了在医师和医疗行业圈之外的社会力量对医疗活动的指导作用。     

Collective Guilt and Collective Guilt Feelings

Can collectives feel guilt with respect to what they have done? It hasbeen claimed that they cannot. Yet in everyday discourse collectives areoften held to feel guilt, criticized because they do not, and so on.Among other things, this paper considers what such so-called collectiveguilt feelings amount to. If collective guilt feelings are sometimesappropriate, it must be the case that collectives can indeed beguilty. The paper begins with an account of what it is for a collectiveto intend to do something and to act in light of that intention.According to this account, and in senses that are explained, there is acollective that intends to do something if and only if the members of agiven population are jointly committed to intend as a body to do thatthing. A related account of collective belief is also presented. It isthen argued that, depending on the circumstances, a group's action canbe free as opposed to coerced, and that the idea that a collective assuch can be guilty of performing a wrongful act makes sense. The ideathat a group might feel guilt may be rejected because it is assumed thatto feel guilt is to experience a ``pang'' or ``twinge'' of guilt –nothing more and nothing less. Presumably, though, there must becognitions and perhaps behavior involved. In addition, the primacy, eventhe necessity, of ``feeling-sensations'' to feeling guilt in theindividual case has been questioned. Without the presumption that it isalready clear what feeling guilt amounts to, three proposals as to thenature of collective guilt feelings are considered. A ``feeling ofpersonal guilt'' is defined as a feeling of guilt over one's own action.It is argued that it is implausible to construe collective guiltfeelings in terms of members' feelings of personal guilt. ``Membershipguilt feelings'' involve a group member's feeling of guilt over what hisor her group has done. It is argued that such feelings are intelligibleif the member is party to the joint commitment that lies at the base ofthe relevant collective intention and action. However, an account ofcollective guilt in terms of membership guilt feelings is found wanting.Finally, a ``plural subject'' account of collective guilt feelings isarticulated, such that they involve a joint commitment to feel guilt asa body. The parties to a joint commitment of the kind in question may asa result find themselves experiencing ``pangs'' of the kind associatedwith personal and membership guilt feelings. Since these pangs, byhypothesis, arise as a result of the joint commitment to feel guilt as abody, they might be thought of as providing a kind of phenomenology forcollective guilt. Be that as it may, it is argued the plural subjectaccount has much to be said for it.     

Human reactions to technological failure: How accidents rooted in technology vs. human error influence judgments of organizational accountability

Two experiments examine how the identification of technology as a causal factor in an organizational accident influences judgments of organizational accountability. In study 1, organizations were found to be held less accountable for their actions when a misfortune was rooted in a computer error than when rooted in human error. The predicted mechanism for this effect, counterfactual thinking, was confirmed. Specifically, technologically induced accidents were found to generate fewer counterfactual thoughts of better possible outcomes than similar accidents resulting from human error. Study 2 replicated the findings of study 1 in a more natural setting and using a less intrusive measure for counterfactual thoughts.     

Genocidalism

This is an attempt to develop a more complete understanding of ``genocidalism of commission,' or the genocidal use of ``genocide,' defined stipulatively as ``the energetic attributions of ``genocide' in less than clear cases without considering available and convincing opposing evidence and argumentation.' Genocidalism is a widespread phenomenon regarding the discourse on international affairs in the advanced, liberal societies of the West, embedding a ``normative divide' between the ways of attending to domestic (national) concerns and ways of attending to international issues. I argue that genocidalism is morally wrong, explore its likely causes, and suggest possible ways of getting rid of this hateful practice. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance

This article challenges the view that it is always better to hold decision makers accountable for their decision process rather than their decision outcomes. In three multiple-cue judgment studies, the authors show that process accountability, relative to outcome accountability, consistently improves judgment quality in relatively simple elemental tasks. However, this performance advantage of process accountability does not generalize to more complex configural tasks. This is because process accountability improves an analytical process based on cue abstraction, while it does not change a holistic process based on exemplar memory. Cue abstraction is only effective in elemental tasks (in which outcomes are a linear additive combination of cues) but not in configural tasks (in which outcomes depend on interactions between the cues). In addition, Studies 2 and 3 show that the extent to which process and outcome accountability affect judgment quality depends on individual differences in analytical intelligence and rational thinking style.