The Social Explanatory Styles Questionnaire: Assessing moderators of basic social-cognitive phenomena including spontaneous trait inference, the fundamental attribution error, and moral blame

Why is he poor? Why is she failing academically? Why is he so generous? Why is she so conscientious? Answers to such everyday questions—social explanations—have powerful effects on relationships at the interpersonal and societal levels. How do people select an explanation in particular cases? We suggest that, often, explanations are selected based on the individual\u27s pre-existing general theories of social causality. More specifically, we suggest that over time individuals develop general beliefs regarding the causes of social events. We refer to these beliefs as social explanatory styles. Our goal in the present article is to offer and validate a measure of individual differences in social explanatory styles. Accordingly, we offer the Social Explanatory Styles Questionnaire (SESQ), which measures three independent dimensions of social explanatory style: Dispositionism, historicism, and controllability. Studies 1–3 examine basic psychometric properties of the SESQ and provide positive evidence regarding internal consistency, factor structure, and both convergent and divergent validity. Studies 4–6 examine predictive validity for each subscale: Does each explanatory dimension moderate an important phenomenon of social cognition? Results suggest that they do. In Study 4, we show that SESQ dispositionism moderates the tendency to make spontaneous trait inferences. In Study 5, we show that SESQ historicism moderates the tendency to commit the Fundamental Attribution Error. Finally, in Study 6 we show that SESQ controllability predicts polarization of moral blame judgments: Heightened blaming toward controllable stigmas (assimilation), and attenuated blaming toward uncontrollable stigmas (contrast). Decades of research suggest that explanatory style regarding the self is a powerful predictor of self-functioning. We think it is likely that social explanatory styles—perhaps comprising interactive combinations of the basic dimensions tapped by the SESQ—will be similarly potent predictors of social functioning. We hope the SESQ will be a useful tool for exploring that possibility

Explanation and Intergroup Emotion: Social Explanations as a Foundation of Prejudice-Related Compunction

Two studies examined whether social explanations—causal frameworks used to make sense of a group’s status and behavior—are associated with prejudice-related compunction. In Study 1, based on Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliott, (1991), participants who endorsed external explanations (e.g. low socioeconomic status of Blacks stems from historical maltreatment) showed a particularly strong tendency to experience compunction in response to prejudice-related discrepancies. Study 2 involved a novel paradigm. Participants were induced to admit that they would discriminate against Black males. Conceptually replicating Study 1, endorsement of external explanations was positively associated with compunction in response to this imagined discrimination. Across both studies, there was also evidence that the effects of external explanations are not explicable in terms of internal motivation to avoid prejudice, global prejudice, or global positive evaluation of African Americans. Discussion centers on the importance of explanations in shaping intergroup emotions and how the concept of explanation links the intergroup emotion literature to other emotion literatures

A geometric proof of the Kochen-Specker no-go theorem

We give a short geometric proof of the Kochen-Specker no-go theorem for non-contextual hidden variables models. Note added to this version: I understand from Jan-Aake Larsson that the construction we give here actually contains the original Kochen-Specker construction as well as many others (Bell, Conway and Kochen, Schuette, perhaps also Peres).Comment: This paper appeared some years ago, before the author was aware of quant-ph. It is relevant to recent developments concerning Kochen-Specker theorem

Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses conducted via the Cochrane Collaboration adhere to strict methodological and reporting standards aiming to minimize bias, maximize transparency/reproducibility, and improve the accuracy of summarized data. Whether this results in differences in the results reported by meta-analyses on the same topic conducted outside the Cochrane Collaboration is an open question. METHODS: We conducted a matched-pair analysis with individual meta-analyses as the unit of analysis, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Using meta-analyses from the cardiovascular literature, we identified pairs that matched on intervention and outcome. The pairs were contrasted in terms of how frequently results disagreed between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, whether effect sizes and statistical precision differed systematically, and how these differences related to the frequency of secondary citations of those reviews. RESULTS: Our search yielded 40 matched pairs of reviews. The two sets were similar in terms of which was first to publication, how many studies were included, and average sample sizes. The paired reviews included a total of 344 individual clinical trials: 111 (32.3%) studies were included only in a Cochrane review, 104 (30.2%) only in a non-Cochrane review, and 129 (37.5%) in both. Stated another way, 62.5% of studies were only included in one or the other meta-analytic literature. Overall, 37.5% of pairs had discrepant results. The most common involved shifts in the width of 95% confidence intervals that would yield a different statistical interpretation of the significance of results (7 pairs). Additionally, 20% differed in the direction of the summary effect size (5 pairs) or reported greater than a 2-fold difference in its magnitude (3 pairs). Non-Cochrane reviews reported significantly higher effect sizes (P < 0.001) and lower precision (P < 0.001) than matched Cochrane reviews. Reviews reporting an effect size at least 2-fold greater than their matched pair were cited more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Though results between topic-matched Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were quite similar, discrepant results were frequent, and the overlap of included studies was surprisingly low. Non-Cochrane reviews report larger effect sizes with lower precision than Cochrane reviews, indicating systematic differences, likely reflective of methodology, between the two types of reviews that could generate different interpretations of the interventions under question

Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses conducted via the Cochrane Collaboration adhere to strict methodological and reporting standards aiming to minimize bias, maximize transparency/reproducibility, and improve the accuracy of summarized data. Whether this results in differences in the results reported by meta-analyses on the same topic conducted outside the Cochrane Collaboration is an open question. METHODS: We conducted a matched-pair analysis with individual meta-analyses as the unit of analysis, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Using meta-analyses from the cardiovascular literature, we identified pairs that matched on intervention and outcome. The pairs were contrasted in terms of how frequently results disagreed between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, whether effect sizes and statistical precision differed systematically, and how these differences related to the frequency of secondary citations of those reviews. RESULTS: Our search yielded 40 matched pairs of reviews. The two sets were similar in terms of which was first to publication, how many studies were included, and average sample sizes. The paired reviews included a total of 344 individual clinical trials: 111 (32.3%) studies were included only in a Cochrane review, 104 (30.2%) only in a non-Cochrane review, and 129 (37.5%) in both. Stated another way, 62.5% of studies were only included in one or the other meta-analytic literature. Overall, 37.5% of pairs had discrepant results. The most common involved shifts in the width of 95% confidence intervals that would yield a different statistical interpretation of the significance of results (7 pairs). Additionally, 20% differed in the direction of the summary effect size (5 pairs) or reported greater than a 2-fold difference in its magnitude (3 pairs). Non-Cochrane reviews reported significantly higher effect sizes (P < 0.001) and lower precision (P < 0.001) than matched Cochrane reviews. Reviews reporting an effect size at least 2-fold greater than their matched pair were cited more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Though results between topic-matched Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were quite similar, discrepant results were frequent, and the overlap of included studies was surprisingly low. Non-Cochrane reviews report larger effect sizes with lower precision than Cochrane reviews, indicating systematic differences, likely reflective of methodology, between the two types of reviews that could generate different interpretations of the interventions under question

Elements of the B Cell Signalosome Are Differentially Affected by Mercury Intoxication

It has been suggested that environmental exposures to mercury contribute to autoimmune disease. Disruption of BCR signaling is associated with failure of central tolerance and autoimmunity, and we have previously shown that low levels of Hg2+ interfere with BCR signaling. In this report we have employed multiparametric phosphoflow cytometry, as well as a novel generalization of the Overton algorithm from one- to two-dimensional unimodal distributions to simultaneously monitor the effect of low level Hg2+ intoxication on activation of ERK and several upstream elements of the BCR signaling pathway in WEHI-231 B cells. We have found that, after exposure to low levels of Hg2+, only about a third of the cells are sensitive to the metal. For those cells which are sensitive, we confirm our earlier work that activation of ERK is attenuated but now report that Hg2+ has little upstream effect on the Btk tyrosine kinase. On the other hand, we find that signaling upstream through the Syk tyrosine kinase is actually augmented, as is upstream activation of the B cell signalosome scaffolding protein BLNK

Genes of the serotonergic and dopaminergic pathways and their interaction affect the expression of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia (BPSD).

Although there is evidence for the involvement of genes of serotonergic and dopaminergic systems in the manifestation of the Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia (BPSD), genetic association studies are contradictory. We used 1008 probable AD patients from the UK and applied a Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) approach to investigate the effect of 11 polymorphisms in the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems, on four behavioural sub-phenotypes, namely &#x22;psychosis&#x22;,&#x22; moods&#x22;, &#x22;agitation&#x22; and &#x22;behavioural dyscontrol&#x22;, as well as on 12 NPI items. Significant findings included the association of DRD1 A48G with &#x22;psychosis&#x22; (p=0.037), the association of DAT1 VNTR with &#x22;agitation&#x22; (p=0.006) and the association of DRD4 with &#x22;moods&#x22; sub-phenotype (p=0.008). In addition, associations were identified between DRD1 A48G and DAT1 VNTR with aberrant motor behaviour (AMB) symptoms (p=0.001 and p=0.015 respectively), between DRD4 and sleep disturbances (p=0.018) and between 5HTTLPR and apathy (p=0.033). Finally, significant interactions were observed between COMT Val158Met and 5HTTLPR with &#x22;psychosis&#x22; (p=0.026), between HTTLPR and STin2 with &#x22;psychosis&#x22; (p=0.005), between DAT1 3&#x27;UTR VNTR and COMT Val158Met with &#x22;agitation&#x22; (p=0.0001) and between DAT1 3&#x27;UTR VNTR and 5HTTLPR with the &#x22;moods&#x22; factor (p=0.0027). The complexity of the interrelations between genetic variation, behavioural symptoms and clinical variables was efficiently captured by this MIMIC model

University fashion show: Best practices to showcase student work.

The university catwalk is often used as a promotional tool by programs to highlight their student designers. This panel will discuss the different types of fashion shows held at their own school and look at different business models which keep them going. Discussion topics will include: the goal of the fashion show, fundraising, garment selection, sponsorships, ticket prices, locations, audience, diversity/ethical considerations for models, sustainability, getting publicity, obtaining a venue, theme/branding, photography, developing a relationship between the students producing the show and the student designers, etc. We will also touch on motivating students, student roles and communication techniques. Some schools also extend their fashion show through museum exhibits or displays highlighting the best of show. Schools also differ on whether they offer a course on fashion show productions or if it is a student-led and run production. Panelists include a student who produced the fashion show at her school as an undergraduate for a different perspective on the discussion. We will also speak about whether the traditional fashion show model is needed in an era of social media.Design, Housing and Merchandisin