Registered replication report: a large multilab cross-cultural conceptual replication of Turri, Buckwalter, & Blouw (2015)

According to the Justified True Belief account of knowledge (JTB), a person can only truly know something if they have a belief that is both justified and true (i.e., knowledge is justified true belief). This account was challenged by Gettier (1963), who argued that JTB does not explain knowledge attributions in certain situations, later called Gettier-type cases, wherein a protagonist is justified in believing something to be true, but their belief was only correct due to luck. Lay people may not attribute knowledge to protagonists with justified but only luckily true beliefs. While some research has found evidence for these so-called Gettier intuitions (e.g., Machery et al., 2017a), Turri et al. (2015) found no evidence that participants attributed knowledge in a counterfeit-object Gettier-type case differently than in a matched case of justified true belief. In a large-scale, cross-cultural conceptual replication of Turri and colleagues’ (2015) Experiment 1 (N = 4,724) using a within-participants design and three vignettes across 19 geopolitical regions, we did find evidence for Gettier intuitions; participants were 1.86 times more likely to attribute knowledge to protagonists in standard cases of justified true belief than to protagonists in Gettier-type cases. These results suggest that Gettier intuitions may be detectable across different scenarios and cultural contexts. However, the size of the Gettier intuition effect did vary by vignette, and the Turri et al. (2015) vignette produced the smallest effect, which was similar in size to that observed in the original study. Differences across vignettes suggest epistemic intuitions may also depend on contextual factors unrelated to the criteria of knowledge, such as the characteristics of the protagonist being evaluated

De la culpabilisation à la réparation : une contribution à l'étude des processus cognitifs sous-jacents à l'émotion de culpabilité. L'exemple des comportements pro-environnementaux

Guilt is a frequent, social and self-conscious emotion generally assumed to motivatea desire to repair. However this link is not automatic and several studies found that guiltcould sometimes lead to negative outcomes. Explanations for these paradoxical behavioralconsequences are still in need for clarification. The processes underlying these effects arein particular still unidentified. Twelve experiments tested 3 potential underlying cognitivemechanisms as well as the influence of guilt on pro-environmental behavior considered asa specific category of general prosocial behavior. First, our results indicate that guilt maypromote pro-environmental behavior in the presence of reparation suggestions, but thatthis link is fragile and can be reversed when reparatory means are blatantly offered by theguilt inducer. Second, our results showed that guilt leads people to pay more attention toreparation cues and to develop a more positive attitude toward reparation means. However,surprisingly, guilt does not seem to increase the accessibility of reparatory means. Resultsare discussed in terms of a better knowledge of guilt’s functioning as well as perspectivesin the field of pro-environmental persuasion.La culpabilité est une émotion fréquente, sociale et réflexive associée à une tendancecomportementale de « réparation » des dommages causés. Pourtant, ce lien n’est passystématique et plusieurs recherches ont montré que la culpabilité pouvait provoquer descomportements négatifs, voire antisociaux. Les explications de ces effets paradoxaux sonten grande partie insuffisantes. En particulier, les processus cognitifs sous-jacents àl’émotion de culpabilité demeurent mal connus. Douze expériences ont testé d’une partl’implication de trois processus cognitifs, d’autre part les conditions d’influence de laculpabilité sur un comportement pro-social (le comportement pro-environnemental). Lesrésultats montrent en premier lieu que la culpabilité favorise le comportement proenvironnementalen présence de suggestions de réparation, mais que ce lien est renversé(réactance) lorsque les propositions de réparation sont trop flagrantes. En outre, il a étémontré que la culpabilité favorisait une orientation d’attention vers des stimuli liés à laréparation ainsi qu’une plus grande attitude positive implicite envers la réparation. Aucuneffet n’a été trouvé concernant l’implication du processus d’accessibilité. Ces résultats sontdiscutés en termes d’une meilleure compréhension globale du fonctionnement de laculpabilité et de perspectives de recherche, notamment dans le domaine de la persuasion

From guilt to reparation : exploring guilt's underlying cognitive processes. The case of pro-environmental behaviors

La culpabilité est une émotion fréquente, sociale et réflexive associée à une tendancecomportementale de « réparation » des dommages causés. Pourtant, ce lien n’est passystématique et plusieurs recherches ont montré que la culpabilité pouvait provoquer descomportements négatifs, voire antisociaux. Les explications de ces effets paradoxaux sonten grande partie insuffisantes. En particulier, les processus cognitifs sous-jacents àl’émotion de culpabilité demeurent mal connus. Douze expériences ont testé d’une partl’implication de trois processus cognitifs, d’autre part les conditions d’influence de laculpabilité sur un comportement pro-social (le comportement pro-environnemental). Lesrésultats montrent en premier lieu que la culpabilité favorise le comportement proenvironnementalen présence de suggestions de réparation, mais que ce lien est renversé(réactance) lorsque les propositions de réparation sont trop flagrantes. En outre, il a étémontré que la culpabilité favorisait une orientation d’attention vers des stimuli liés à laréparation ainsi qu’une plus grande attitude positive implicite envers la réparation. Aucuneffet n’a été trouvé concernant l’implication du processus d’accessibilité. Ces résultats sontdiscutés en termes d’une meilleure compréhension globale du fonctionnement de laculpabilité et de perspectives de recherche, notamment dans le domaine de la persuasion.Guilt is a frequent, social and self-conscious emotion generally assumed to motivatea desire to repair. However this link is not automatic and several studies found that guiltcould sometimes lead to negative outcomes. Explanations for these paradoxical behavioralconsequences are still in need for clarification. The processes underlying these effects arein particular still unidentified. Twelve experiments tested 3 potential underlying cognitivemechanisms as well as the influence of guilt on pro-environmental behavior considered asa specific category of general prosocial behavior. First, our results indicate that guilt maypromote pro-environmental behavior in the presence of reparation suggestions, but thatthis link is fragile and can be reversed when reparatory means are blatantly offered by theguilt inducer. Second, our results showed that guilt leads people to pay more attention toreparation cues and to develop a more positive attitude toward reparation means. However,surprisingly, guilt does not seem to increase the accessibility of reparatory means. Resultsare discussed in terms of a better knowledge of guilt’s functioning as well as perspectivesin the field of pro-environmental persuasion

How guilt leads to reparation? Exploring the processes underlying the effects of guilt

It is widely assumed that guilt leads people to engage into reparatory behaviors. However, the processes underlying this effect are in need for further specification. Four studies tested potential underlying cognitive mechanisms. Results suggest that guilt increases attention toward positive and reparation-oriented cues (Study 1) and makes attitudes toward reparation-oriented primes more positive (Study 3). No effect was found for accessibility of reparation words (Studies 2a, b). Taken together, these results suggest that guilt leads people to pay more attention to reparation means and to develop a more positive attitude toward reparation means, but does not render reparatory means more accessible. Implications for a better knowledge of guilt’s behavioral consequences are discussed

Comprendre le lien culpabilité-réparation : un rôle potentiel de l’attention

International audienc

Reparation or reactance? The influence of guilt on reaction to persuasive communication ☆

Guilt is generally assumed to motivate a desire to repair and to promote prosocial behavior. However, recent research suggests that this link is not automatic and that guilt may sometimes lead to negative social outcomes. Four experiments tested the causal influence of incidental guilt on pro-environmental attitude and behavior considered as a specific category of general prosocial behavior. Results indicate that guilt may indeed promote general prosocial (pro-environmental) behavior, but that it requires the presence of reparation suggestions in order to trigger prosocial behavior. Moreover, this link is fragile and can be reversed when reparatory means are blatantly offered by the guilt inducer. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for research on guilt and for the role of guilt in persuasive communication

New insights on the molecular features and electrophysiological properties of dinotefuran, imidacloprid and acetamiprid neonicotinoid insecticides

Structural features and hydrogen-bond interactions of dinotefuran (DIN), imidacoloprid (IMI) and ace-tamiprid (ACE) have been investigated experimentally through analyses of new crystal structures and observations in structural databases, as well as by Density Functional Theory quantum chemical calculations. Several conformations are observed experimentally in the solid state, highlighting the large flexibility of these compounds. This feature is confirmed by the theoretical calculations in the gas phase, the numerous and different energetic minima of the three neonicotinoids being located within a 10 kJ/mol range. Comparisons of the observed and simulated data sheds light on the hydrogen-bond (HB) strength of the functional group at the tip of the electronegative fragment of each pharmacophore (NO2 for DIN and IMI and C N for ACE). This effect originates in the `push-pull' nature of these fragments and the related extensive electron delocalization. Molecular electrostatic potential calculations provide a ranking of the two fragments of the three neonicotinoid in terms of HB strength. Thus, the NO2 group of DIN is the strongest HB acceptor of the electronegative fragment, closely followed by the cyano group of ACE. These two groups are significantly more potent than the NO2 group of IMI. With respect to the other fragments of the three neonicotinoids, the nitrogen atom of the pyridine of IMI and ACE are stronger HB acceptors than the oxygen atom of the furanyl moiety of DIN. Finally, compared to electrophysiological studies obtained from cockroach synaptic and extrasynaptic receptors, DIN appears more effective than IMI and ACE because it strongly increases dose-dependently the ganglionic depolarisation and the currents amplitudes. These data suggest that DIN, IMI and ACE belong to two subgroups which act differently as agonists of insect nicotinic receptors. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved