Perceived Conflict of Interest in Health Science Partnerships

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested

Advances in understanding and treating ADHD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurocognitive behavioral developmental disorder most commonly seen in childhood and adolescence, which often extends to the adult years. Relative to a decade ago, there has been extensive research into understanding the factors underlying ADHD, leading to far more treatment options available for both adolescents and adults with this disorder. Novel stimulant formulations have made it possible to tailor treatment to the duration of efficacy required by patients, and to help mitigate the potential for abuse, misuse and diversion. Several new non-stimulant options have also emerged in the past few years. Among these, cognitive behavioral interventions have proven popular in the treatment of adult ADHD, especially within the adult population who cannot or will not use medications, along with the many medication-treated patients who continue to show residual disability

The Cultural Transmission of Prestige and Dominance Social Rank Cues: an Experimental Simulation

This is the final version. Available from Springer via the DOI in this record.Below is the link to the dataset and preview of the experiment, and Dataset (CSV, 133KB) - process_raw_data_included.csv can be found in the Electronic Supplementary Material section Preview of the experiment: https://exetercles.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_071cfHiCY9qBEkB.Informal social hierarchies within small human groups are argued to be based on prestige, dominance, or a combination of the two (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Prestige-based hierarchies entail the ordering of individuals by the admiration and respect they receive from others due to their competence within valued domains. This type of hierarchy provides benefits for subordinates such as social learning opportunities and both private and public goods. In contrast, dominance-based hierarchies entail the ordering of individuals by their capacity to win fights, and coerce or intimidate others. This type of hierarchy produces costs in subordinates due to its aggressive and intimidating nature. Given the benefits and costs associated with these types of social hierarchies for subordinates, we hypothesised that prestige and dominance cues are better recalled and transmitted than social rank cues that do not elicit high prestige or dominance associations (i.e. medium social rank cues). Assuming that for the majority of the population who are not already at the top of the social hierarchy it is more important to avoid the costs of dominance-based hierarchies than to obtain the benefits of prestige-based hierarchies, we further hypothesised that dominance cues are better transmitted than prestige cues. We conducted a recall-based transmission chain experiment with 30 chains of four generations each (N = 120). Participants read and recalled descriptions of prestigious, dominant, and medium social rank footballers, and their recall was passed to the next participant within their chain. As predicted, we found that both prestige cues and dominance cues were better transmitted than medium social rank cues. However, we did not find support for our prediction of the better transmission of dominance cues than prestige cues. We discuss whether the results might be explained by a specific social-rank content transmission bias or by a more general emotional content transmission bias.University of Exete

An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-014-2487-

Participative Leadership and Organizational Identification in SMEs in the MENA Region: Testing the Roles of CSR Perceptions and Pride in Membership

The aim of this research is to explore the process linking participative leadership to organizational identification. The study examines the relationship between participative leadership and internal CSR perceptions of employees and also investigates the role that pride in membership plays in the affiliation of CSR perceptions with organizational identification. By studying these relationships, the paper aspires to contemplate new presumed mediators in the association of participative leadership with organizational identification as well as determine a possible novel antecedent of employee CSR perceptions. Empirical evidence is provided from data that was collected through a survey distributed to employees working for small- and medium-sized enterprises in three countries in the Middle East and North Africa regions, particularly the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Findings show that participative leadership leads to positive internal CSR perceptions of employees and that these CSR perceptions lead to pride in membership which, in turn, results in organizational identification. Implications of these findings are also discussed

Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances people’s sense of process control, which people were assumed to value because it impacts their perceived likelihood of receiving desired outcomes (the instrumental perspective of procedural justice). Subsequent research questioned this perspective, arguing that outcome expectations do not account for the effects of voice. However, this subsequent research failed to directly examine the interplay of voice, outcome expectations, and reactions. The current studies revisit and extend research on this topic by asking whether manipulations of voice act as shared circumstance effects. Confirming an untested implication of the instrumental perspective, we show that giving everyone voice increases their belief, ex-ante, that they are likely to win an upcoming competition. However, this instrumental belief accounts for only part of the effects of voice on perceived procedural fairness and on general reactions to outcomes. Results suggest that voice does indeed have instrumental significance, an implication not adequately recognized in current justice theorizing. However, this instrumentality does not, by itself, explain why people value having a voice in processes that affect them

Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances people’s sense of process control, which people were assumed to value because it impacts their perceived likelihood of receiving desired outcomes (the instrumental perspective of procedural justice). Subsequent research questioned this perspective, arguing that outcome expectations do not account for the effects of voice. However, this subsequent research failed to directly examine the interplay of voice, outcome expectations, and reactions. The current studies revisit and extend research on this topic by asking whether manipulations of voice act as shared circumstance effects. Confirming an untested implication of the instrumental perspective, we show that giving everyone voice increases their belief, ex-ante, that they are likely to win an upcoming competition. However, this instrumental belief accounts for only part of the effects of voice on perceived procedural fairness and on general reactions to outcomes. Results suggest that voice does indeed have instrumental significance, an implication not adequately recognized in current justice theorizing. However, this instrumentality does not, by itself, explain why people value having a voice in processes that affect them

Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances people’s sense of process control, which people were assumed to value because it impacts their perceived likelihood of receiving desired outcomes (the instrumental perspective of procedural justice). Subsequent research questioned this perspective, arguing that outcome expectations do not account for the effects of voice. However, this subsequent research failed to directly examine the interplay of voice, outcome expectations, and reactions. The current studies revisit and extend research on this topic by asking whether manipulations of voice act as shared circumstance effects. Confirming an untested implication of the instrumental perspective, we show that giving everyone voice increases their belief, ex-ante, that they are likely to win an upcoming competition. However, this instrumental belief accounts for only part of the effects of voice on perceived procedural fairness and on general reactions to outcomes. Results suggest that voice does indeed have instrumental significance, an implication not adequately recognized in current justice theorizing. However, this instrumentality does not, by itself, explain why people value having a voice in processes that affect them