We investigate the causal manipulability hypothesis, according to which what partly explains (a) why people tend to prefer negative events to be in their further future rather than their nearer future and positive events to be in their nearer future rather than their further future and (b) why people tend to prefer that negative events be located in their past not their future and that positive events be located in their future not their past, is that people tend to discount (...) the value of events they are less able causally to manipulate. If people discount the value of events they are less able to causally manipulate, then since often temporally nearer future events are more causally manipulable than further ones, and since future events are manipulable whereas past ones aren’t, this could explain both (a) and (b). In turn, if the causal manipulability hypothesis is correct, this might suggest that insofar as people’s preferences are explained in this manner, those preferences are rationally permissible, since relative causal manipulability is normatively relevant. Thus, ascertaining whether the causal manipulability hypothesis is true may shed light on the normative status of such preferences. We investigate the cognitively mediated version of the causal manipulability hypothesis, according to which people’s consciously held beliefs about the relative causal manipulability of events explains (a) and (b). Contrary to expectations, we found no evidence in favour of this view. We suggest that either relative causal manipulability plays an explanatory role, but one that is not cognitively mediated, or that it does not play any role, even if it is sometimes associated with other factors, such as probability, that may play a role in explaining some time biased preferences. (shrink)

This is an invited commentary on "Physical Time within Human Time" (Gruber, Block, & Montemayor, 2022) and "Bridging the Neuroscience and Physics of Time" (Buonomano & Rovelli, 2021). I’m very sympathetic to aspects of each proposal. In this article, I offer some comments, starting with (Buonomano & Rovelli, 2021).

The state plays a major role in corporate social responsibility in emerging and transitional economies and often influences firms through political connection, and hence knowing how firms respond to the state’s CSR initiatives can inform policy making and has important implication on the sustainability of society and environment. However, existent studies show conflicting results on politically connected firms’ CSR participation. We examine the relationship between political endorsement and firms’ engagement in different types of CSR simultaneously. Using a representative sample of (...) more than 1,000 private firms in the early 2000s, we find that politically endorsed firms engage more in philanthropic donation, but less in environmental practices, which impose higher costs and constraints than philanthropy. This is consistent with our explanation that they attempt to maintain legitimacy and discretion through selective engagement in CSR. Our study contributes to research on CSR in transitional economies by reconciling conflicting findings about the CSR engagement of politically connected firms, provides a new lens to illuminate firms’ strategic response in CSR, and has important policy implications. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of cognitive information processing and social cognitive career theory group counseling on high school students’ career adaptability. The study involved 81 students from grade 10 and grade 11 in a Chinese public high school. Among the 81 participants, 27 were in the CIP group, 28 were in the SCCT group, while the rest were in the control group. All participants completed a pre-test, post-test, and tracking-test assessment of their career adaptability. (...) Results indicated that the interventions were effective for the students with low career adaptability, the CIP group counseling improved the career concern after the intervention, whereas the SCCT group revealed a more robust effect on career adaptability after 3 months of the intervention. The practical implications of the study for career interventions are also discussed. (shrink)