Causal Responsibility and Robust Causation

How do people judge the degree of causal responsibility that an agent has for the outcomes of her actions? We show that a relatively unexplored factor – the robustness (or stability) of the causal chain linking the agent’s action and the outcome – influences judgments of causal responsibility of the agent. In three experiments, we vary robustness by manipulating the number of background circumstances under which the action causes the effect, and find that causal responsibility judgments increase with robustness. In the first experiment, the robustness manipulation also raises the probability of the effect given the action. Experiments 2 and 3 control for probability-raising, and show that robustness still affects judgments of causal responsibility. In particular, Experiment 3 introduces an Ellsberg type of scenario to manipulate robustness, while keeping the conditional probability and the skill deployed in the action fixed. Experiment 4, replicates the results of Experiment 3, while contrasting between judgments of causal strength and of causal responsibility. The results show that in all cases, the perceived degree of responsibility (but not of causal strength) increases with the robustness of the action-outcome causal chain

Learning in the European Union: Theoretical Lenses and Meta-Theory

notes: This paper is based on research carried out with the support of the European Research Council grant on Analysis of Learning in Regulatory Governance, ALREG http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/ceg/research/ALREG/index.php. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the other authors in this special edition and in particular its editor, Nikos Zaharaidis and X anonymous referees.publication-status: AcceptedThe European Union may well be a learning organization, yet there is still confusion about the nature of learning, its causal structure and the normative implications. In this article we select four perspectives that address complexity, governance, the agency-structure nexus, and how learning occurs or may be blocked by institutional features. They are transactional theory, purposeful opportunism, experimental governance, and the joint decision trap. We use the four cases to investigate how history and disciplinary traditions inform theory; the core causal arguments about learning; the normative implications of the analysis; the types of learning that are theoretically predicted; the meta-theoretical aspects and the lessons for better theories of the policy process and political scientists more generally

Tamoxifen's protection against breast cancer recurrence is not reduced by concurrent use of the SSRI citalopram

Tamoxifen remains an important adjuvant therapy to reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence among patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive tumours. Cytochrome P-450 2D6 metabolises tamoxifen to metabolites that more readily bind the oestrogen receptor. This enzyme also metabolises selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), so these widely used drugs – when taken concurrently – may reduce tamoxifen's prevention of breast cancer recurrence. We studied citalopram use in 184 cases of breast cancer recurrence and 184 matched controls without recurrence after equivalent follow-up. Cases and controls were nested in a population of female residents of Northern Denmark with stages I–III oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer 1985–2001 and who took tamoxifen for 1, 2, or most often for 5 years. We ascertained prescription histories by linking participants' central personal registry numbers to prescription databases from the National Health Service. Seventeen cases (9%) and 21 controls (11%) received at least one prescription for the SSRI citalopram while taking tamoxifen (adjusted conditional odds ratio=0.85, 95% confidence interval=0.42, 1.7). We also observed no reduction of tamoxifen effectiveness among regular citalopram users (⩾30% overlap with tamoxifen use). These results suggest that concurrent use of citalopram does not reduce tamoxifen's prevention of breast cancer recurrence

Systematizing Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions

notes: The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Norwegian Political Science Association Annual Conference, 6 January 2010, University of Agder, Kristiansand, participants of the ‘Establishing Causality in Policy Learning’ panel at the American Political Science Association (APSA) annual meeting,2–5 September 2010,Washington DC, and the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions, St Gallen, 12–17 April 2011, workshop 2. Dunlop and Radaelli gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Research Council, grant on Analysis of Learning in Regulatory Governance, ALREG, http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/ceg/research/ALREG/index.php.publication-status: AcceptedThe definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com and also from DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.xThe field of policy learning is characterised by concept stretching and lack of systematic findings. To systematize them, we combine the classic Sartorian approach to classification with the more recent insights on explanatory typologies. At the outset, we classify per genus et differentiam – distinguishing between the genus and the different species within it. By drawing on the technique of explanatory typologies to introduce a basic model of policy learning, we identify four major genera in the literature. We then generate variation within each cell by using rigorous concepts drawn from adult education research. Specifically, we conceptualize learning as control over the contents and goals of knowledge. By looking at learning through the lenses of knowledge utilization, we show that the basic model can be expanded to reveal sixteen different species. These types are all conceptually possible, but are not all empirically established in the literature. Up until now the scope conditions and connections among types have not been clarified. Our reconstruction of the field sheds light on mechanisms and relations associated with alternatives operationalizations of learning and the role of actors in the process of knowledge construction and utilization. By providing a comprehensive typology, we mitigate concept stretching problems and aim to lay the foundations for the systematic comparison across and within cases of policy learning.European Research Council, grant no 230267 on Analysis of Learning in Regulatory Governance, ALREG

Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators

This systematic literature review appraises critically the mediating variables of stereotype threat. A bibliographic search was conducted across electronic databases between 1995 and 2015. The search identified 45 experiments from 38 articles and 17 unique proposed mediators that were categorized into affective/subjective (n = 6), cognitive (n = 7) and motivational mechanisms (n = 4). Empirical support was accrued for mediators such as anxiety, negative thinking, and mind-wandering, which are suggested to co-opt working memory resources under stereotype threat. Other research points to the assertion that stereotype threatened individuals may be motivated to disconfirm negative stereotypes, which can have a paradoxical effect of hampering performance. However, stereotype threat appears to affect diverse social groups in different ways, with no one mediator providing unequivocal empirical support. Underpinned by the multi-threat framework, the discussion postulates that different forms of stereotype threat may be mediated by distinct mechanisms