Executive Function: Generational and Environmental Influences

Executive function (EF) is one of the most important cognitive processes, and EF dysfunction can contribute to an array of negative outcomes. There is evidence that the preschool years are a time of rapid development in EF; additionally, there is evidence that factors such as maternal EF, depression, parenting styles, and SES can influence the development of EF during a child’s life. The current study hypothesized that maternal EF, SES, and maternal depression will all act negatively on the development of a child’s EF, and also that maternal depression will negatively influence maternal EF. Participants included 90 mother-child dyads from the Columbus area. All of the children recruited were between 3 and 3½ years old. EF was assessed in laboratory setting, with the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST) being used to measure maternal EF. Child EF was assessed on two dimensions; attentional flexibility and inhibitory control. Attentional flexibility was assessed using the Dimensional Change Card Sort Test (DCCS), and inhibitory control with the Bear and Dragon, Shapes, and Day and Night tasks. Maternal depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD), and family income was used as a proxy for SES. Multiple regression analysis revealed a connection between maternal depression and maternal perseverative errors on child EF performance, as well as a moderate correlation between maternal depression and maternal EF. However, no relationship was found between SES and child EF. The results of this study add to the understanding of the generational and environmental influences on a child’s EF development during the pre-school years; understanding which can be useful in preventing the negative outcomes associated with EF deficits.No embargoAcademic Major: Psycholog

Intercollegiate Wine Business Invitational

Nathan Saragoza, Ally Bushman, Cassidy Robinson, Hanna Bingham, Sam Weymouth, and Luca Mallon discuss student engagement at Linfield College with regard to their participation in the Intercollegiate Wine Business Invitational.https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/inauguration2019_students/1015/thumbnail.jp

Two Claims About Desert

Many philosophers claim that it is always intrinsically good when people get what they deserve and that there is always at least some reason to give people what they deserve. I highlight problems with this view and defend an alternative. I have two aims. First, I want to expose a gap in certain desert-based justifications of punishment. Second, I want to show that those of us who have intuitions at odds with these justifications have an alternative account of desert at our disposal – one that may lend our intuitions more credibilit

Harm: Omission, Preemption, Freedom

The Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm says that an event is overall harmful for someone if and only if it makes her worse off than she otherwise would have been. I defend this account from two common objections

Philosophical success

Peter van Inwagen proposes a criterion of philosophical success. He takes it to support an extremely pessimistic view about philosophy. He thinks that all philosophical arguments for substantive conclusions fail, including the argument from evil. I’m more optimistic on both counts. I’ll identify problems with van Inwagen’s criterion and propose an alternative. I’ll then explore the differing implications of our criteria. On my view, philosophical arguments can succeed and the argument from evil isn’t obviously a failure

Moral Luck Defended

I argue that there is moral luck, i.e., that facts beyond our control can affect how laudable or culpable we are