Core communitarian values for community practice: human development, empowerment, and social justice

James Anderson. (2024).

Technology Journal of Management,

Accounting and Economics, 12(4).

Link Here.

Abstract

Values are conceptions of good which enlighten and guide human analysis and action. Discounting noteworthy exceptions, community psychology has neglected making explicit and openly discussing its ethical and value dimensions. My aim in this paper to partially remedy such neglect by posing new sustantive values and approaches suitable for community practice. I suggest first changes in the deontological values to adapt them to the complexity and dynamism of community work. So I put forward shared or collective autonomy, that extends self-direction to the whole community, to substitue for individual disolving autonomy. I also introduce self-care (legitimate self-beneficence) to guarantee psychological and moral integrity of the practitioner as well as long term sustainability of communiy action. I describe, secondly, some core communitarian values. Human development which includes interaction and social bonding besides self-direction. Empowerment, an instrumental value, made of subjective consciousness, communication, and effective social action. Social justice, the main socio-communitarian value, consist of three components: a vital universal minimum, fair distribution of material and psychosocial goods and resources produced by society, and igualitarian personal treatment and relationship.

Here are some thoughts: 

The article explores core communitarian values essential for effective community psychology practice, emphasizing the need to move beyond traditional deontological ethics toward a more socially grounded framework. It argues that community psychology has historically neglected explicit ethical discourse despite its intrinsic moral dimensions. To address this gap, the author proposes redefining autonomy as shared or collective autonomy , extending self-direction to the entire community rather than focusing solely on individuals. Additionally, self-care is introduced as a crucial value to sustain practitioners' psychological and moral integrity. The paper outlines three central socio-community values: human development , empowerment , and social justice . Human development integrates personal growth with social bonding, empowerment focuses on increasing individual and group capacity through awareness and action, and social justice is framed around three pillars—ensuring a vital minimum for all, equitable distribution of resources, and relational fairness. These values are intended to guide both ethical reflection and practical interventions in community settings.

Infants’ psychophysiological responses to eye contact with a human and with a humanoid robot

Linnunsalo, S., et al. (2024).

Biological Psychology, 108858.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108858

Abstract

Eye contact with a human and with a humanoid robot elicits attention- and affect-related psychophysiological responses. However, these responses have mostly been studied in adults, leaving their developmental origin poorly understood. In this study, 114 infants (6–8 months old) viewed direct and averted gaze directions of a live human and an embodied humanoid robot while their heart rate deceleration (attention orienting), skin conductance (affective arousal), and facial muscle activity (affective valence) were measured. In addition, a non-humanoid object (a vase) was used as a control stimulus. Infants’ attention orienting was stronger to averted versus direct gaze of a human and a robot, but indifferent to the averted versus direct orientation of the non-humanoid object. Moreover, infants’ attention orienting was equally intensive toward a human and a robot, but less intensive toward a non-humanoid object. Affective arousal was insensitive to gaze direction and did not differ between the human, the robot, and the non-humanoid object. Facial muscle responses showed sensitivity to the gaze direction of a human and of a robot but not to the orientation of the non-humanoid object. These results suggest that infants recognize the attentional and affective/affiliative significance not only in a human’s gaze but also in a robot’s gaze.

Highlights

• We investigated infants’ psychophysiological responses to eye contact.

• Infants viewed direct and averted gaze of a live human and of a humanoid robot.

• Heart rate deceleration, skin conductance and facial electromyography were measured.

• Responses were sensitive to the gaze direction of a human and of a humanoid robot.

The article is paywalled here.

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores how infants aged 6 to 8 months respond to eye contact from both humans and humanoid robots, highlighting the importance of eye contact in early social development. The study found that infants recognize the social significance of eye contact not only from human faces but also from humanoid robots, indicating an early ability to engage socially. Interestingly, while infants looked longer at both the human and robot stimuli compared to a non-interactive vase, their looking times did not differ between direct and averted gazes, suggesting they were equally engaged by both.

The researchers observed that infants’ heart rates slowed more in response to averted gazes, which may signal an emerging capacity for joint attention—an essential component of social skills. Additionally, facial muscle activity revealed that infants’ cheek muscles, associated with smiling, were more active during direct eye contact, while eyebrow muscles linked to concentration showed increased activity with averted gazes. This pattern suggests that infants may interpret eye contact as a positive social cue while simultaneously focusing on where others are looking.

Involving 114 infants, the study presented them with a human, a humanoid robot named Nao, and a vase, using live stimuli to enhance realism. Researchers recorded infants’ reactions through eye-tracking, heart rate measurements, and facial muscle activity. The findings indicated that infants respond similarly to the eye contact of humanoid robots and humans, suggesting that even at a young age, they may interpret robotic social cues similarly to human interactions. However, the study also noted that emotional arousal related to eye contact might develop later as infants gain more social experience.

Despite these insights, the study had limitations, particularly concerning the use of a vase as a control stimulus, which lacked eyes. This raises questions about whether infants' responses were driven solely by the robots' human-like features or their social behaviors. These findings are significant as humanoid robots become increasingly integrated into caregiving and educational settings, underscoring the need to understand how infants perceive and interact with these artificial agents.

Synthetic human embryos created in groundbreaking advance

Hannah Devlin

The Guardian

Originally posted 14 JUNE 23

Here is an excerpt:

“Our human model is the first three-lineage human embryo model that specifies amnion and germ cells, precursor cells of egg and sperm,” Żernicka-Goetz told the Guardian before the talk. “It’s beautiful and created entirely from embryonic stem cells.”

The development highlights how rapidly the science in this field has outpaced the law, and scientists in the UK and elsewhere are already moving to draw up voluntary guidelines to govern work on synthetic embryos. “If the whole intention is that these models are very much like normal embryos, then in a way they should be treated the same,” Lovell-Badge said. “Currently in legislation they’re not. People are worried about this.”

There is also a significant unanswered question on whether these structures, in theory, have the potential to grow into a living creature. The synthetic embryos grown from mouse cells were reported to appear almost identical to natural embryos. But when they were implanted into the wombs of female mice, they did not develop into live animals. In April, researchers in China created synthetic embryos from monkey cells and implanted them into the wombs of adult monkeys, a few of which showed the initial signs of pregnancy but none of which continued to develop beyond a few days. Scientists say it is not clear whether the barrier to more advanced development is merely technical or has a more fundamental biological cause.

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

Researchers used stem cells to create structures that resembled early-stage human embryos, with a beating heart and primitive brain-like structures.

The synthetic embryos could be used to study human development and to develop new treatments for infertility and miscarriage. However, the research also raises ethical concerns, as it is not clear whether the synthetic embryos should be considered the same as natural embryos.

Some bioethicists have argued that the synthetic embryos should be treated with the same respect as natural embryos, as they have the potential to develop into human beings. Others have argued that the synthetic embryos are not the same as natural embryos, as they were not created through the union of an egg and sperm.

The research has been welcomed by some scientists, who believe it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of human development. However, other scientists have expressed concern about the ethical implications of the research.

Children Prioritize Humans Over Animals Less Than Adults Do

Wilks M, Caviola L, Kahane G, Bloom P.

Psychological Science. 2021;32(1):27-38. 

doi:10.1177/0956797620960398

Abstract

Is the tendency to morally prioritize humans over animals weaker in children than adults? In two preregistered studies (total N = 622), 5- to 9-year-old children and adults were presented with moral dilemmas pitting varying numbers of humans against varying numbers of either dogs or pigs and were asked who should be saved. In both studies, children had a weaker tendency than adults to prioritize humans over animals. They often chose to save multiple dogs over one human, and many valued the life of a dog as much as the life of a human. Although they valued pigs less, the majority still prioritized 10 pigs over one human. By contrast, almost all adults chose to save one human over even 100 dogs or pigs. Our findings suggest that the common view that humans are far more morally important than animals appears late in development and is likely socially acquired.

From the Discussion section

What are the origins of this tendency? One possibility is that it is an unlearned preference. For much of human history, animals played a central role in human life—whether as a threat or as a resource. It therefore seems possible that humans would develop distinctive psychological mechanisms for thinking about animals. Even if there are no specific cognitive adaptations for thinking about animals, it is hardly surprising that humans prefer humans over animals—similar to their preference for tribe members over strangers. Similarly, given that in-group favoritism in human groups (e.g., racism, sexism, minimal groups) tends to emerge as early as preschool years (Buttelmann & Böhm, 2014), one would expect that a basic tendency to prioritize humans over animals also emerges early.

But we would suggest that the much stronger tendency to prioritize humans over animals in adults has a different source that, given the lack of correlation between age and speciesism in children, emerges late in development. Adolescents may learn and internalize the socially held speciesist notion—or ideology—that humans are morally special and deserve full moral status, whereas animals do not. 

A pdf of the research is here.

Japan Set to Allow Gene Editing in Human Embryos

David Cyranoski
Scientific American
Originally posted on October 3, 2018

Japan has issued draft guidelines that allow the use of gene-editing tools in human embryos. The proposal was released by an expert panel representing the country’s health and science ministries on 28 September.

Although the country regulates the use of human embryos for research, there have been no specific guidelines on using tools such as CRISPR–Cas9 to make precise modifications in their DNA until now.

Tetsuya Ishii, a bioethicist at Hokkaido University in Sapporo, says that before the draft guidelines were issued, Japan’s position on gene editing in human embryos was neutral. The proposal now encourages this kind of research, he says.

But if adopted, the guidelines would restrict the manipulation of human embryos for reproduction, although this would not be legally binding.

Manipulating DNA in embryos could reveal insights into early human development. Researchers also hope that in the long term, these tools could be used to fix genetic mutations that cause diseases, before they are passed on.

The info is here.

Why we must teach morality to robots: Podcast

Daniel Glaser

The Guardian

Originally published February 27, 2017

Every week comes a new warning that robots are taking over our jobs. People have become troubled by the question of how robots will learn ethics, if they do take over our work and our planet.

As early on as the 1960s Isaac Asimov came up with the ‘Three Laws of Robotics’ outlining moral rules they should abide by. More recently there has been official guidance from the British Standards Institute advising designers how to create ethical robots, which is meant to avoid them taking over the world.

From a neuroscientist’s perspective, they should learn more from human development. We teach children morality before algebra. When they’re able to behave well in a social situation, we teach them language skills and more complex reasoning. It needs to happen this way round. Even the most sophisticated bomb-sniffing dog is taught to sit first.

If we’re interested in really making robots think more like we do, we can’t retrofit morality and ethics. We need to focus on that first, build it into their core, and then teach them to drive.

The 30-minute podcast is here.

Age-Related Differences in Moral Identity Across Adulthood

T. Krettenauer, L. A. Murua, & F. Jia
Developmental Psychology, Apr 28 , 2016

Abstract

In this study, age-related differences in adults’ moral identity were investigated. Moral identity was conceptualized a context-dependent self-structure that becomes differentiated and (re)integrated in the course of development and that involves a broad range of value-orientations. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 252 participants aged 14 to 65 years (148 women, M = 33.5 years, SD = 16.9) and a modification of the Good Self-Assessment, it was demonstrated that mean-level of moral identity (averaged across the contexts of family, school/work, and community) significantly increased in the adult years, whereas cross-context differentiation showed a nonlinear trend peaking at the age of 25 years. Value-orientations that define individuals’ moral identity shifted so that self-direction and rule-conformity became more important with age. Age-related differences in moral identity were associated with, but not fully attributable to changes in personality traits. Overall, findings suggest that moral identity development is a lifelong process that starts in adolescence but expands well into middle age.

Here is an excerpt from the Discussion section:

The finding suggests that during adolescence and emerging adulthood individuals become more aware of changing moral priorities under varying circumstances. This process of differentiation is followed by the tendency to (re)integrate value priorities so that moral identities are not only defined by the self-importance of particular values, but by their consistent importance across different areas of life. This consistency may bolster individuals' sense of agency, as moral actions may be experienced as emanating from the self rather than from demand characteristics of external circumstances. Thus, the decline in cross-context differentiation in moral identities in adulthood may indicate that agentic desires become better integrated with morality, which has been described as an important goal of moral identity development by Frimer andWalker (2009).

The article is here.

Why this lab-grown human embryo has reignited an old ethical debate

By Patrick Monahan
Science
May. 4, 2016

It’s easy to obey a rule when you don’t have the means to break it. For decades, many countries have permitted human embryos to be studied in the laboratory only up to 14 days after their creation by in vitro fertilization. But—as far as anyone knows—no researcher has ever come close to the limit. The point of implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus about 7 days after fertilization, has been an almost insurmountable barrier for researchers culturing human embryos.

Now, two teams report growing human embryos about a week past that point. Beyond opening a new window on human biology, such work could help explain early miscarriages caused by implantation gone awry. As a result, some scientists and bioethicists contend that it’s time to revisit the so-called 14-day rule. But that won’t be welcomed by those who consider the rule to have a firm moral grounding—or by those who oppose any research on human embryos.

The article is here.

Neuroscience is changing the debate over what role age should play in the courts

By Tim Requarth
Newsweeek
Originally posted April 18, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

The Supreme Court has increasingly called upon new findings in neuroscience and psychology in a series of rulings over the past decade (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana) that prohibited harsh punishments—such as the death penalty and mandatory life without parole—for offenders under 18. Due to their immaturity, the argument goes, they are less culpable and so deserve less punishment than those 18 or older. In addition, because their wrongdoing is often the product of immaturity, younger criminals may have a greater potential for reform. Now people are questioning whether the age of 18 has any scientific meaning.

“People are not magically different on their 18th birthday,” says Elizabeth Scott, a professor of law at Columbia University whose work was cited in the seminal Roper case. “Their brains are still maturing, and the criminal justice system should find a way to take that into account.”

The article is here.

Does your morality change over time?

Maria Isabel Garcia
Rappler.com
Originally published March 4, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

If the morality of young and older adults generally do not change, how can we count on change in general if that is what it would take to have a better future?

We look to children. That is where mothers, yours and mine, know instinctively. I think these data suggest once again how crucial pre-adolescent stage is in shaping our individual moral compasses. Most societies do not hold children responsible for their moral behavior because we presume that these are not yet forged by fire in the core of our beings. If these joint studies would further be supported by more studies, we really have a relatively short window in time to get those childhood moral compasses pointing to the general direction that would favor their well-being and societies’ in general.

The article is here.

How to get kids to tell the truth? It's not all about carrot or stick

By Dan Jones
Research Digest Blog
Originally published January 15, 2015

All parents have to come to terms with the fact that their little angels will, from time to time, act like little devils. They’ll throw tantrums over trivial issues, or they’ll push, hit, bite or scratch other kids. And at some point they’ll start lying about what they’ve done.

Lying is perfectly normal among children, not a sign of a sociopath in the making. Many kids start telling the odd fib around their second birthday, and by the time they’re 4 or 5 they’re even better at the art of manipulating the truth, and keeping it from us. So how can parents help their kids internalise the lesson that honesty is the best — or at least the socially preferred — policy?

The entire blog post is here.

‘She’s not a slag because she only had sex once’: Sexual ethics in a London secondary school

By Sarah Winkler Reid
Journal of Moral Education
Volume 43, Issue 2, 2014
Special Issue: ‘The good child’: Anthropological perspectives on morality and childhood

Abstract

The premature sexualisation of young people is a source of intense public anxiety, often framed as an unprecedented crisis. Concurrently, a critical scholarship highlights problematic assumptions underpinning this discourse, including a positioning of young people as morally compromised passive subjects, and a disconnect between the reductionist framework and the complexity of young peoples’ lived experiences. Drawing from ethnographic research in a London school, in this article I argue that by attending to the everyday lives of pupils, a more nuanced picture of moral and sexual change and continuity emerges. Using the framework of ‘ordinary ethics’, which identifies ethics as pervasive in speech and action, I demonstrate the multiple ways by which young people define and act according to what they consider sexually good and right. In this way the analytical focus is shifted from passivity to activity and we can appreciate how young people today are evincing a sexual ethics of force and efficacy.

The entire article is here.

Why It’s Imperative to Teach Empathy to Boys

By Gayle Allen and Deborah Farmer Kris

Mind/Shift Blog

Originally posted June 25, 2014

When searching for toys for their kids at chain toy stores, parents typically encounter the following scenario: toy aisles are color-coded pink and blue. They shouldn’t bother looking for LEGOS, blocks, and trucks in the pink aisle, and they certainly won’t find baby dolls in the blue aisle.

While parents, researchers, and educators decry the lack of STEM toys for girls — and rightly so — what often goes unnoticed is that assigning genders to toys harms boys, as well. Too often children’s playrooms reinforce gender stereotypes that put boys at risk of failing to gain skills critical for success in life and work. The most important of these? Empathy.

The entire article is here.

Friend or Foe? Early Social Evaluation of Human Interactions

Buon M, Jacob P, Margules S, Brunet I, Dutat M, et al. (2014) Friend or Foe? Early Social Evaluation of Human Interactions. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088612

Abstract

We report evidence that 29-month-old toddlers and 10-month-old preverbal infants discriminate between two agents: a pro-social agent, who performs a positive (comforting) action on a human patient and a negative (harmful) action on an inanimate object, and an anti-social agent, who does the converse. The evidence shows that they prefer the former to the latter even though the agents perform the same bodily movements. Given that humans can cause physical harm to their conspecifics, we discuss this finding in light of the likely adaptive value of the ability to detect harmful human agents.

The entire article is here.