The Under— and Overestimation Effects in Comparative Judgments — Assimilation and Contrast Mechanisms The aim of the studies presented in this paper was to propose a new explanation of under— and overestimation effects in comparative judgments. The fundamental assumption of this new interpretation is that in comparative judgments ("the object X in comparison with the object Y" type) the target is contrasted with the comparison standard when the compared objects seem generally dissimilar and assimilated to the standard (...) when the objects seem generally similar. In a series of three studies students were asked to compare the chances of certain events occurring to two objects (self vs. classmate vs. the average person). The direction of comparison was manipulated. Generally, when the more salient object was compared to the less salient object, irrespective of the valence of the events, the overestimation effects occurred only in case of frequent events and the underestimation effects only in case of rare events. The reversal of direction of comparisons yielded the clear reduction of comparative bias. (shrink)

This study examined relationships between dark/light personality traits and moral dilemma judgment, comparing humans and large language models (LLMs). Using the CNI model, we analyzed 404 Chinese participants and 2,092 LLM-generated responses. In humans, superordinate dark traits negatively predicted moral norm sensitivity, whereas superordinate light traits positively predicted it. At the subordinate level, sadism and Machiavellianism negatively predicted moral norm sensitivity, Kantianism positively predicted it, and faith in humanity predicted stronger general action preference. For LLMs, only the direction of (...) effects on moral norm sensitivity was consistent with humans; substantial differences appeared in consequence sensitivity and general action preference. LLM-generated dark personality showed lower moral norm sensitivity and stronger action preference than LLM-generated light personality, whereas consequence sensitivity showed no stable pattern. The results reveal that LLMs only show a preliminary simulation capacity and fail to reflect the complex features of personality and moral judgment. (shrink)

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of few-shot metaphor detection using Large Language Models, to compare their performance with that of human annotators, and to analyze similarities and differences in conceptual legal metaphors in English and Turkish, by analyzing the source and target texts of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The study database consists of 12 English–Turkish judgments, preprocessed using regular expressions and automatic alignment. The sentence-aligned texts of the database were parsed by Natural Language Processing tools to (...) extract their part-of-speech, sentence dependency, named entity and morphological information. The linguistic-information labeled database was then parsed by ChatGPT Large Language Model version GPT-4o (“Omni”) via OpenAI API with few-shot learning for automatic legal domain conceptual metaphor detection, following a prompt-improval trial phase on a test case. The performance of Large Language Model in conceptual metaphor, target domain, source domain and frame detection by ChatGPT were annotated and evaluated for performance by human annotators within the framework of _Conceptual Metaphor Theory._ The results show that the few-shot learning is highly effective (100%) in automatic metaphor detection. Following the refinement of the system prompt and few-shot examples after tests on a larger dataset, the model’s performance in source and target domain and frame labeling improved markedly. Comparative linguistics analyses reveal metaphorical density is preserved across English and Turkish judgments in translation, but systematic shifts are observed in conceptual domains: whereas English favors FORCE and STRUCTURE metaphors, Turkish translations show increased use of PATH metaphors, reflecting language-specific cognitive preferences, indicating English to Turkish legal metaphor translation maintains quantitative stability, but involves qualitative conceptual reconfiguration. Our results support the view that metaphor translation entails cultural and cognitive adaptation rather than direct equivalence. (shrink)

The ``doctrinal paradox'' or ``discursive dilemma'' shows that propositionwise majority voting over the judgments held by multiple individuals on some interconnected propositions can lead to inconsistent collective judgments on these propositions. List and Pettit (2002) have proved that this paradox illustrates a more general impossibility theorem showing that there exists no aggregation procedure that generally produces consistent collective judgments and satisfies certain minimal conditions. Although the paradox and the theorem concern the aggregation of judgments rather than preferences, they invite comparison (...) with two established results on the aggregation of preferences: the Condorcet paradox and Arrow's impossibility theorem. We may ask whether the new impossibility theorem is a special case of Arrow's theorem, or whether there are interesting disanalogies between the two results. In this paper, we compare the two theorems, and show that they are not straightforward corollaries of each other. We further suggest that, while the framework of preference aggregation can be mapped into the framework of judgment aggregation, there exists no obvious reverse mapping. Finally, we address one particular minimal condition that is used in both theorems – an independence condition – and suggest that this condition points towards a unifying property underlying both impossibility results. (shrink)

This comparative field study evaluated the moral reasoning used by U.S. and Belizean business students in resolving business-related moral dilemmas. The Belizeans, citizens of a less-developed country with Western heritage and a values-based education system, revolved the dilemmas using higher stages of moral judgment than did the U.S. business students.

This study provides a comparative analysis of students' self-reported beliefs and behaviors related to six analogous pairs of conventional and digital forms of academic cheating. Results from an online survey of undergraduates at two universities (N = 1,305) suggest that students use conventional means more often than digital means to copy homework, collaborate when it is not permitted, and copy from others during an exam. However, engagement in digital plagiarism (cutting and pasting from the Internet) has surpassed conventional plagiarism. (...) Students also reported using digital "cheat sheets" (i.e., notes stored in a digital device) to cheat on tests more often than conventional "cheat sheets." Overall, 32% of students reported no cheating of any kind, 18.2% reported using only conventional methods, 4.2% reported using only digital methods, and 45.6% reported using both conventional and digital methods to cheat. "Digital only" cheaters were less likely than "conventional only" cheaters to report assignment cheating, but the former was more likely than the latter to report engagement in plagiarism. Students who cheated both conventionally and digitally were significantly different from the other three groups in terms of their self-reported engagement in all three types of cheating behavior. Students in this "both" group also had the lowest sense of moral responsibility to refrain from cheating and the greatest tendency to neutralize that responsibility. The scientific and educational implications of these findings are discussed in this study. (shrink)

This paper demonstrates the value to experimental philosophy of an empirical method from the social sciences – that of comparative judgment. Comparative judgment is a method of assigning scores to (perceptions of) objects using paired comparisons. We use this method to explore the “ordinary meaning” of words, and the classic case of vehicles in the park in particular. We present an empirical study comprising three conditions. Given a pair of potential vehicles, participants were asked to judge (...) either 1) the better example of a vehicle, 2) the worse violation of a sign that reads “no vehicles in the park”, or 3) the bigger nuisance in a park. We find that both the meaning of the wording of the rule and the intention behind it influence participants judgments of rule-violations, consistent with previous studies. More importantly, comparative judgment provides more fine-grained information about agreement and the weighted rankings of the potential vehicles than other methods, with widespread potential applications in experimental philosophy. (shrink)

I introduce a mathematical account of expectation based on a qualitative criterion of coherence for qualitative comparisons between gambles (or random quantities). The qualitative comparisons may be interpreted as an agent’s comparative preference judgments over options or more directly as an agent’s comparative expectation judgments over random quantities. The criterion of coherence is reminiscent of de Finetti’s quantitative criterion of coherence for betting, yet it does not impose an Archimedean condition on an agent’s comparative judgments, it does (...) not require the binary relation reflecting an agent’s comparative judgments to be reflexive, complete or even transitive, and it applies to an absolutely arbitrary collection of gambles, free of structural conditions (e.g., closure, measurability, etc.). Moreover, unlike de Finetti’s criterion of coherence, the qualitative criterion respects the principle of weak dominance, a standard of rational decision making that obliges an agent to reject a gamble that is possibly worse and certainly no better than another gamble available for choice. Despite these weak assumptions, I establish a qualitative analogue of de Finetti’s Fundamental Theorem of Prevision, from which it follows that any coherent system of comparative expectations can be extended to a weakly ordered coherent system of comparative expectations over any collection of gambles containing the initial set of gambles of interest. The extended weakly ordered coherent system of comparative expectations satisfies familiar additivity and scale invariance postulates (i.e., independence) when the extended collection forms a linear space. In the course of these developments, I recast de Finetti’s quantitative account of coherent prevision in the qualitative framework adopted in this article. I show that comparative previsions satisfy qualitative analogues of de Finetti’s famous bookmaking theorem and his Fundamental Theorem of Prevision.The results of this article complement those of another article (Pedersen, Strictly coherent preferences, no holds barred, Manuscript, 2013). I explain how those results entail that any coherent weakly ordered system of comparative expectations over a unital linear space can be represented by an expectation function taking values in a (possibly non-Archimedean) totally ordered field extension of the system of real numbers. The ordered field extension consists of formal power series in a single infinitesimal, a natural and economical representation that provides a relief map tracing numerical non-Archimedean features to qualitative non-Archimedean features. (shrink)

Ethics is central to leadership because of the impact leaders have on establishing organizational values and engaging followers to accomplish mutual goals. The ethical concerns of leaders may influence ethical decision-making of their followers. This paper attempts to investigate the relationship between leaders and followers on moral judgment, and make a comparison between China and Taiwan on the leader–follower moral judgment relationship. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey on purchasing professionals in China and Taiwan. The development of (...) moral judgment was measured using the defining issues test. Research findings indicate that followers exhibit higher level of moral judgment while their leaders have higher level of moral judgment. A positive moral judgment relationship exists between leaders and followers. The comparative study between China and Taiwan reveals that Chinese purchasing professionals are more easily influenced by their workplace leaders than their Taiwanese counterparts. Power distance would strengthen the leader–follower moral judgment relationship. The present research makes contributions toward the ethics literature by providing empirical insight into the relationship between leader moral judgment and follower moral judgment. This paper also suggests implications and opportunities for future research. (shrink)

On relativism, it has been argued, certain comparative moral judgments are impossible. Judgments which compare two moral codes, judgments which compare one’s own moral code with another, judgments which, on the basis of a comparison with one’s own code, condemn specific moral practices permitted or required by other codes, judgments which speak of moral progress or reform—all are nonsensical or impossible, the argument alleges. Although commonly conflated, arguments for these distinct but related theses are first distinguished, then exposed, and (...) last subjected to critical scrutiny. While seemingly powerful, all are found wanting. (shrink)

Located at the crossroads of the Eastern and Western world, Turkey today is characterized by a demographically versatile and modernizing society as well as a rapidly developing economy. Currently, the country is negotiating its accession to the European Union. This article yields some factual grounding into the ongoing value-related debate concerning Turkey's potential EU-membership. It describes a mixed-methodology study on moral reasoning in Austria and Turkey. In this study, the arguments given by individuals when evaluating ethically problematic situations in business (...) were compared. Although there were major consistencies, a number of differences were found. These differences, however, were not in the substance of arguments used but in their relative frequency. Overall, our findings suggest that young, well-educated urban individuals from Western Christian and Eastern Islamic countries are highly consistent in their moral reasoning. (shrink)

The book contributes to the global debate about the notion of dignity in constitutional law by contrasting how the apex courts of Canada, Colombia, Egypt, the European Union, and Israel operationalize the concept in their jurisprudence. The five jurisdictions share an Abrahamic faith and secularization tendencies, albeit in different degrees; their legal systems host a plurality of legal and societal values; and their courts have the reputation of being activist. An in-depth analysis of judicial rulings that had a significant impact (...) on the national constitutional culture or reflected on dignity at length identifies two common denominators. First, most of their decisions on dignity are grounded in the works of a limited group of thinkers, in particular, Immanuel Kant and Ronald Dworkin. Second, virtually all the jurisdictions initially structured dignity as a binary notion: dignitary harms affected both the individual or the small group concerned and the society as a whole, as they demeaned also the dignity of the polity that allow such harms. However, these courts have often progressively distanced dignity from its relational component, emphasizing its atomistic aspect and its call for autonomy and self-determination and espousing a narrative of dignity centered on its secularization. In Egypt and Israel, the apex courts have avoided repudiating explicitly the Islamic or Jewish factor, which formally enjoys a special constitutional role; in Europe and the Americas, the rejection of the prevailing religious traditions has been more transparent and vocal. (shrink)

Back groundEmpirical surveys about medical futility are scarce relative to its theoretical assumptions. We aimed to evaluate the difference of attitudes between laypeople and physicians towards the issue.MethodsA questionnaire survey was designed. Japanese laypeople (via Internet) and physicians with various specialties (via paper-and-pencil questionnaire) were asked about whether they would provide potentially futile treatments for end-of-life patients in vignettes, important factors for judging a certain treatment futile, and threshold of quantitative futility which reflects the numerical probability that an act will (...) produce the desired physiological effect. Also, the physicians were asked about their practical frequency and important reasons for futile treatments.Results1134 laypeople and 401 (80%) physicians responded. In all vignettes, the laypeople were more affirmative in providing treatments in question significantly. As the factors for judging futility, medical information and quality of life (QOL) of the patient were rather stressed by the physicians. Treatment wish of the family of the patient and psychological impact on patient side due to the treatment were rather stressed by laypeople. There were wide variations in the threshold of judging quantitative futility in both groups. 88.3% of the physicians had practical experience of providing futile treatment. Important reasons for it were communication problem with patient side and lack of systems regarding futility or foregoing such treatment.ConclusionLaypeople are more supportive of providing potentially futile treatments than physicians. The difference is explained by the importance of medical information, the patient family’s influence to decision-making and QOL of the patient. The threshold of qualitative futility is suggested to be arbitrary. (shrink)

Comparative risk assessment is playing an ever-increasing role in environmental policy priority setting, as manifested in national and numerous subnational comparative risk projects. It is widely accepted that public values, interests, and concerns should play an important role in CRA. However, the philosophical basis for public involvement in CRA has not been adequately explored, nor have comparative risk projects always made explicit their rationales for public involvement. The author examines the political, normative, and epistemic rationales for public (...) involvement and explores the case for public involvement in the making of ethical, valuation, and evidentiary judgments. The author considers key issues each rationale raises, problems eachfaces, and some of the implications of each for specific aspects of CRA. (shrink)

While pragmatic arguments for numerical probability axioms have received much attention, justifications for axioms of qualitative probability have been less discussed. We offer an argument for the requirement that an agent’s qualitative judgments be probabilistically representable, inspired by, but importantly different from, the Money Pump argument for transitivity of preference and Dutch book arguments for quantitative coherence. The argument is supported by a theorem, to the effect that a subject is systematically susceptible to dominance given her preferred acts, if and (...) only if the subject’s comparative judgments preclude representation by a standard probability measure. (shrink)

The House of Lords majority decision in Matthews v. Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority overturns the narrow interpretation given to key aspects of the Part-Time Workers (Protection of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations’ core comparator mechanism in the lower tribunals and the Court of Appeal. It is a contextually astute judgment, which recognises the reductionist implications of an overly narrow approach to establishing comparability for the purposes of a less favourable treatment claim on the grounds of part-time work. The (...) positive aspect of this decision remains overshadowed, however, by the fact that this interpretation provides little consolation to the large majority of part-time women workers whose disadvantage and inequality remains outside the scope of the Regulations’ protection. (shrink)

Ethical issues related to comparative effectiveness research, or research that compares existing standards of care, have recently received considerable attention. In this paper we focus on how Ethics Review Committees should evaluate the risks of comparative effectiveness research. We discuss what has been a prominent focus in the debate about comparative effectiveness research, namely that it is justified when “nothing is known” about the comparative effectiveness of the available alternatives. We argue that this focus may be (...) misleading. Rather, we should focus on the fact that some experts believe that the evidence points in favor of one intervention, whereas other experts believe that the evidence favors the alternative. We will then introduce a case that illustrates this point, and based on that, discuss how ERCs should deal with such cases of expert disagreement. We argue that ERCs have a duty to assess the range of expert opinions and based on that assessment arrive at a risk judgment about the study under consideration. We also argue that assessment of expert disagreement is important for the assignment of risk level to a clinical trial: what is the basis for expert opinions, how strong is the evidence appealed to by various experts, and how can clinical trial monitoring affect the possible increased risk of clinical trial participation. (shrink)

Summary The Body Specificity Hypothesis (BSH) suggests that individuals tend to associate positive evaluations with the space corresponding to their dominant hand and negative evaluations with the non-dominant hand. Valence reinforcement effects, related to BSH, have been demonstrated when stimuli are evaluated following lateral hand movements (e.g., dominant hand rightward—positive, non-dominant hand leftward—negative) on large touchscreens and keyboards. However, limited research has explored how spatial stimuli affect explicit valence judgments without motor responses. This study investigated the impact of spatial placement (...) across different visual fields on valence judgments of neutral images, comparing right- and left-handed individuals. Thirty participants (15 right-handed, 15 left-handed) rated neutral images displayed in the center, right, or left visual field using a 9-point Likert scale. Two experimental sessions were conducted, separated by a 3-week washout period. The first session measured baseline valence evaluations (VE) with images presented centrally, while the second session randomized the images to the left and right visual fields. Results revealed that left-handers tended to assign higher VE to images located in the left visual field (LVF) compared to the center visual field (CVF; p =.02), while right-handers rated images in the LVF more negatively than those in the CVF (p =.007). Additionally, left-handed participants exhibited a flatter pattern across spatial placements. These findings may suggest that body-specific associations are stronger in right-handed individuals, while left-handers may show reduced sensitivity to body- specific associations, due to the predominance of right-handed design in digital technologies. (shrink)

This article compares Alexander von Humboldt 's and John Ruskin's writings on landscape art and natural landscape. In particular, Humboldt 's conception of a habitat's essence as predominantly composed of vegetation as well as judgment of tropical American nature as the realm of nature of the highest aesthetic enjoyment is examined in the context of Ruskin's aesthetic theory. The magnitude of Humboldt 's contribution to the natural sciences seems to have clouded our appreciation of his prominent status in the (...) field of art history. In addition to his position as scientist, Humboldt 's role as aesthetician is demonstrated in this paper. Unlike Ruskin, who comfortably resides in the canon of art history relative to his minor significance in the field of geology, Humboldt has not been recognized for his impact on the world of art; his tremendous scientific importance seems to have overshadowed an appreciation of it. (shrink)

Recently, in attempting to account for explanatory reasoning in probabilistic terms, Bayesians have proposed several measures of the degree to which a hypothesis explains a given set of facts. These candidate measures of "explanatory power" are shown to have interesting normative interpretations and consequences. What has not yet been investigated, however, is whether any of these measures are also descriptive of people’s actual explanatory judgments. Here, I present my own experimental work investigating this question. I argue that one measure in (...) particular is an accurate descriptor of explanatory judgments. Then, I discuss some interesting implications of this result for both the epistemology and the psychology of explanatory reasoning. (shrink)

Research on the neurocognitive underpinnings and disruptions of the sense of agency has been greatly inspired by a simple computational account of agency: the comparator model. However, this account faces several shortcomings in explaining agency in healthy and neuropsychiatric subjects and in explaining the distinction between feelings of agency and judgments of agency. This chapter suggests that integration of agency cues might be governed by a specific weighting mechanism, namely a weighting mechanism that follows the principles of optimal cue integration. (...) According to this notion, internal action-related cues, external action-related cues, and action-independent cues are each constantly weighted according to their reliability in a given situation. Also prior information on one’s action is incorporated, probably along Bayesian principles. Such a process would provide the basis for a much more flexible and at the same time more robust mechanism than proposed by previous neurocognitive accounts of agency. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Comparative Critical Perspectives on the AnthropoceneAn IntroductionAdeline Johns-Putra (bio) and Xianmin Shen (bio)Ever since Eugene Stoermer coined the term Anthropocene in the 1980s and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen identified the present period as the Anthropocene, this ecological and geographical concept has been adopted in other disciplines beyond the realm of science and has taken on particular resonance in the environmental humanities. This is because the advent of (...) the Anthropocene not only connotes a physical phenomenon, that is, a possible new geological epoch in which the damaging effect of the human species on all other species and on our planetary home has become so great as to leave a mark in the planet's fabric. It is also a revelation of human liability and responsibility, in which that stratigraphical scar must be recognized and the global socioeconomic dynamics of exceptionalism and exploitation that it belies reckoned with. This reckoning is one between those with the greatest responsibility for that impact, who are also the ones who will feel that impact least, and those with the least responsibility, who will feel that impact most. Moreover, those vulnerabilities lie with both human and nonhuman individuals: the Anthropocene demands that human-nonhuman as well as intra-human injustices are dealt with, that the ways in which global systems are interlocked with planetary ones are properly understood.Such questions of justice require a critical response, in various senses of the word and its origins. This encompasses a measure of scrutiny and critique; an honest judgment and even criticism of faults and shortcomings; and an awareness of urgency and crisis. With this in mind, and with both planetary and global questions of justice before us, we have [End Page 1] sought with this special issue of Intertexts to bring together analyses of sociocultural representations and discourse in the widest sense (not just literary or other artistic texts, but political events). We asked that these analyses consider how such discourse has been shaped by global workings now taken for granted—the trappings of modernity and the impulses of capitalism—and also to ponder the potential for reshaping those dynamics as part of a collective consciousness.Anthropocene Criticality: The Planetary, the Global, and the WorldWhat kind of Anthropocene criticality would be both an act of recognition of human responsibility and a reckoning across boundaries (whether intra- or interspecies) of agency, power, and vulnerability? How, in other words, do we take full stock of what is signified by anthropos in the term Anthropocene? We invoke here a range of frames for understanding the place of anthropos both as and within the collective that experiences—altogether but not all the same—the Anthropocene. We call these the "planetary," the "global," and the "world."1 We are not the first to distinguish between these terms and to employ them as devices for (re)framing and (re)visualizing the web of human-nonhuman as well as human-human relationships. In 1999, Gayatri Spivak spoke of the "imperative to re-imagine the planet" and, in this talk and updates of it in 2012 and 2014, outlined the need to contemplate "planetarity" instead of "globalism" (An Aesthetic Education, 335–50). In the fields of comparative literature and world literature, debates have occurred over what Pheng Cheah suggests is the encroachment of ideas of "globalization" on to notions of "worldliness" (28), with the question complicated more recently by what Sarah Nuttall sees as the possibility for a "planetary literature" (924–41). What we offer here adopts and adapts these conversations, and as we define and deploy our terms below we will indicate how these overlap.Under the rubric of the "planetary" we place Anthropocene discussions of how to truly comprehend the human as species and as geological agent, that is, both as one species of many and as a species that has occupied an outsized positionality alongside any other species (even [End Page 2] the idea of an "alpha species" seems hardly to do justice to the magnitude of anthropogenic effect on every inch of the biospheric fabric, from the deepest oceans to the upper levels of atmosphere, lasting for millennia). This is not merely about sentimental catch-phrasing... (shrink)

Background: Ethical issues related to comparative effectiveness research, or research that compares existing standards of care, have recently received considerable attention. In this paper we focus on how Ethics Review Committees should evaluate the risks of comparative effectiveness research. Main text: We discuss what has been a prominent focus in the debate about comparative effectiveness research, namely that it is justified when “nothing is known” about the comparative effectiveness of the available alternatives. We argue that this (...) focus may be misleading. Rather, we should focus on the fact that some experts believe that the evidence points in favor of one intervention, whereas other experts believe that the evidence favors the alternative. We will then introduce a case that illustrates this point, and based on that, discuss how ERCs should deal with such cases of expert disagreement. Conclusion: We argue that ERCs have a duty to assess the range of expert opinions and based on that assessment arrive at a risk judgment about the study under consideration. We also argue that assessment of expert disagreement is important for the assignment of risk level to a clinical trial: what is the basis for expert opinions, how strong is the evidence appealed to by various experts, and how can clinical trial monitoring affect the possible increased risk of clinical trial participation. (shrink)

This paper investigates the semantics of implicit comparatives (Alice is tall compared to Bob) and its connections to the semantics of explicit comparatives (Alice is taller than Bob) and sentences with adjectives in plain positive form (Alice is tall). We consider evidence from two experiments that tested judgments about these three kinds of sentence, and provide a semantics for implicit comparatives from the perspective of degree semantics.

Kant’s analysis of the concept of natural purpose in the Critique of judgment captured several features of organisms that he argued warranted making them the objects of a special field of study, in need of a special regulative teleological principle. By showing that organisms have to be conceived as self-organizing wholes, epigenetically built according to the idea of a whole that we must presuppose, Kant accounted for three features of organisms conflated in the biological sciences of the period: adaptation, (...) functionality and conservation of forms..Kant’s unitary concept of natural purpose was subsequently split in two directions: first by Cuvier’s comparative anatomy, that would draw on the idea of adaptative functions as a regulative principle for understanding in reconstituting and classifying organisms; and then by Goethe’s and Geoffroy’s morphology, a science of the general transformations of living forms. However, such general transformations in nature, objects of an alleged ‘archaeology of nature’, were thought impossible by Kant in the §80 of the Critique of judgment. Goethe made this ‘adventure of reason’ possible by changing the sense of ‘explanation’: scientific explanation was shifted from the investigation of the mechanical processes of generation of individual organisms to the unveiling of some ideal transformations of types instantiated by those organisms. (shrink)

Given the widespread occurrence of ethical dilemmas and moral distress in healthcare, it is crucial for educators to strengthen nursing students’ ethical education. However, there is little published research on the best practices for teaching nursing ethics. This study aims to determine whether the Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion (PAD) mode, compared to traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching, increases nursing students’ moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills. A total of 100 eligible nursing students were randomized into two groups: the PAD model group (n = (...) 50) and the LBL group (n = 50). Their moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills were evaluated using the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire-Revised Chinese Version (MSQ-R-CV) and the Chinese Version of Judgment About Nursing Decision (JAND-CV), both before and after the course, and again three months later. After the course, the PAD group showed significantly higher scores in moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making compared to the LBL group, both immediately and at the 3-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Specifically, the PAD group demonstrated greater improvements in total scores and in most subdimensions, including moral responsibility, moral burden, ethical choice, and ethical action. While both groups showed some degree of improvement after the intervention, the changes were more substantial and longer-lasting in the PAD group. This study confirms that the PAD model is an effective method for teaching nursing ethics and developing nursing students’ moral sensitivity and ethical decision-making skills. This randomized trial was registered in Chinese Clinical Registry Center, under code (ChiCTR2400086717) in 07/09/2024. (shrink)

If we speak of degrees of similarity, what kinds of judgment are we assuming to make sense? It will be argued that the necessary and sufficient condition for there to be degrees of similarity is that there should be a four-termed relation of comparative similarity — w resembles x at least as much as y resembles z—obeying certain constraints. Of course, nothing turns on how we use the words 'degree of similarity'. Rather, the point is to distinguish the (...) different levels of ideologicalcommitment which different kinds of judgment of similarity involve. (shrink)

This paper contrasts two approaches to agentive self-awareness: a high-level, narrative-based account, and a low-level comparator-based account. We argue that an agent's narrative self-conception has a role to play in explaining their agentive judgments, but that agentive experiences are explained by low-level comparator mechanisms that are grounded in the very machinery responsible for action-production.

This study explored the comparative quality of social studies lesson plans generated by artificial intelligence (AI) and preservice teachers (PSTs), assessed by experienced social studies teacher educators. Using a concurrent mixed-methods approach, evaluators blind-reviewed six lesson plans—three AI-generated and three PST-generated—using a research-based rubric addressing coherence, clarity, learning objectives, activities, assessment alignment, and integration of inquiry and critical thinking. Quantitative findings indicated AI-generated lessons consistently outperformed PST-generated lessons in clarity, structured alignment, and inquiry integration. Qualitative analyses revealed a central (...) paradox: AI was better at the technical elements of lesson planning, excelling in procedural efficiency and clarity, making them practically beneficial for immediate classroom use; however, human teachers brought more depth and creativity when those elements were present, demonstrating greater historical nuance and critical engagement. These findings suggest AI’s promising potential as a foundational resource to alleviate teacher workloads and reduce burnout, while underscoring the irreplaceable role of human creativity and pedagogical judgment. (shrink)

We present evidence from a pre-registered experiment indicating that a philosophical argument––a type of rational appeal––can persuade people to make charitable donations. The rational appeal we used follows Singer’s well-known “shallow pond” argument (1972), while incorporating an evolutionary debunking argument (Paxton, Ungar, & Greene 2012) against favoring nearby victims over distant ones. The effectiveness of this rational appeal did not differ significantly from that of a well-tested emotional appeal involving an image of a single child in need (Small, Loewenstein, and (...) Slovic 2007). This is a surprising result, given evidence that emotions are the primary drivers of moral action, a view that has been very influential in the work of development organizations. We did not find support for our pre-registered hypothesis that combining our rational and emotional appeals would have a significantly stronger effect than either appeal in isolation. However, our finding that both kinds of appeal can increase charitable donations is cause for optimism, especially concerning the potential efficacy of well-designed rational appeals. We consider the significance of these findings for moral psychology, ethics, and the work of organizations aiming to alleviate severe poverty. (shrink)

Counterfactual thinking involves imagining hypothetical alternatives to reality. Philosopher David Lewis argued that people estimate the subjective plausibility that a counterfactual event might have occurred by comparing an imagined possible world in which the counterfactual statement is true against the current, actual world in which the counterfactual statement is false. Accordingly, counterfactuals considered to be true in possible worlds comparatively more similar to ours are judged as more plausible than counterfactuals deemed true in possible worlds comparatively less similar. Although Lewis (...) did not originally develop his notion of comparative similarity to be investigated as a psychological construct, this study builds upon his idea to empirically investigate comparative similarity as a possible psychological strategy for evaluating the perceived plausibility of counterfactual events. More specifically, we evaluate judgments of comparative similarity between episodic memories and episodic counterfactual events as a factor influencing people's judgments of plausibility in counterfactual simulations, and we also compare it against other factors thought to influence judgments of counterfactual plausibility, such as ease of simulation and prior simulation. Our results suggest that the greater the perceived similarity between the original memory and the episodic counterfactual event, the greater the perceived plausibility that the counterfactual event might have occurred. While similarity between actual and counterfactual events, ease of imagining, and prior simulation of the counterfactual event were all significantly related to counterfactual plausibility, comparative similarity best captured the variance in ratings of counterfactual plausibility. Implications for existing theories on the determinants of counterfactual plausibility are discussed. (shrink)

While the role of comparative law in the courts was previously only an exception, foreign sources are now increasingly becoming a source of law in regular use in supreme and constitutional courts. There is considerable variation between the practices of courts and the role of comparative law, and methods remain controversial. In the US, the issue has been one of intense public debate and it is still one of the major dividing issues in the discussion about the role (...) of the courts. Contributing to the existing discussion of the use of comparative law in the courts, this book provides an inclusive, coherent, and practical analysis of the relevant law and jurisprudence in comparative law in the courts. It examines the consequences for court procedures and the form of judgments, as well as how foreign sources are drawn upon in private international law, European law, administrative law, and constitutional law as well as before general courts. The book also includes case studies of comparative law used in particular spheres of the law, such as tort law and consumer law. Written by practising judges and lawyers as well as leading academics, this book serves as a central reference point concerning the role of comparative law before the courts. (shrink)

This Article adopts a comparative perspective on the use of privatization by governments in the welfare context. It begins by reviewing the extent of welfare privatization in the US, the UK, and Ireland, considering notable examples such as privatized welfare-to-work schemes and residential care. For example, the question of privatized welfare accommodation in the UK has resulted in significant litigation and a major judgment on privatization handed down by the House of Lords in 2007. The Article turns to (...) a consideration of the challenges that arise from using privatization in the welfare context from the perspective of i) accountability and ii) human rights. The ways in which the different jurisdictions respond to the challenges of welfare privatization—and the lessons to be learned from those responses—are then assessed. Overall, it is argued that judicial or doctrinal responses to privatization are often inadequate and the extent to which there exist alternative mechanisms to ensure accountability and human rights protection in the context of welfare privatization are explored. (shrink)

The objective of this article is to deepen our understanding of transformative engagement in comparative and critical dialogues of comparative or transnational political thought. The first five sections discuss the challenges of dialogical comparative political thought. The following three sections discuss how a dialogue approach responds to these challenges and generates comparative and critical mutual understanding and mutual judgment.

This paper reports on an experiment concerning the social construction of statistical definitions, where the first census of Higher Education Institutions in Europe has been developed. It conceptualizes the construction of indicators as a social process of definitions and boundaries’ negotiation, involving value judgments, social and political opinions, as well as practical interests and power strategies of actors. The paper exemplifies this process on three issues, namely the social demand for establishing a census, the controversy concerning the definition of a (...) perimeter as well as the selection of indicators, and the nature of comparability judgments. We first conclude that the socio-political dimension has to be explicitly taken into account when designing statistical systems; second, that social scientists involved in this process need to openly recognize the conflicts around the definition of indicators; third, that the objectified and taken for granted status of indicators makes them a powerful instrument to influence policy decisions and, that indicator designers need to make their own value judgments and interests fully transparent. (shrink)

I discuss the role of translatability in philosophical justification. I begin by discussing and defending Thomas Reid’s account of the role that facts about comparative linguistics can play in philosophical justification. Reid believes that common sense offers a reliable but defeasible form of justification. We cannot know by introspection, however, which of our judgments belong to common sense. Judgments of common sense are universal, and so he argues that the strongest evidence that a judgment is a part of (...) common sense is that it is to be found in all languages. For Reid, then, evidence that a certain distinction is to be found in all languages is evidence that the distinction is part of common sense rather than being a common local prejudice. From such a perspective, empirical work in comparative linguistics can play a defeasible justificatory role in philosophical arguments. I contrast Reid’s position with the more radical position of defenders of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach, such as Anna Wierzbicka, who argues that only judgments that are translatable into all natural languages are justifiable. I show how such a position is rooted in an implausible view, although one common among cognitive scientists and linguistics, about the nature of concepts, which does not allow for novel concepts. (shrink)

When experts make judgments that inform public policy, what kinds of reasons should they consider in order to provide informed and responsible recommendations? Extant discussions of this question typically focus on the role of non-epistemic values in the evaluation of scientific hypotheses. However, the kinds of epistemic reasons that should undergird such assessments have received comparatively little attention. This paper argues that evidence is not the only kind of epistemic reason important for guiding expert judgment. Experts must also be (...) sensitive to two kinds of social epistemic reasons, which have so far been overlooked in discussions on expertise. First, experts must be sensitive to higher-order evidence about other experts' views, including about disagreements between experts. Second, they must also be sensitive to inquisitive reasons concerning, for example, the pursuitworthiness of various research programs in the field, or the distribution of labor across those research programs. The paper illustrates the fruitfulness of this account by showing the importance of these overlooked reasons for understanding examples of expert judgment from the history of science and contemporary scientific practice. (shrink)