Children punish third parties to satisfy both consequentialist and retributive motives

Marshall, J., Yudkin, D.A. & Crockett, M.J. 

Nat Hum Behav (2020). 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00975-9

Abstract

Adults punish moral transgressions to satisfy both retributive motives (such as wanting antisocial others to receive their ‘just deserts’) and consequentialist motives (such as teaching transgressors that their behaviour is inappropriate). Here, we investigated whether retributive and consequentialist motives for punishment are present in children approximately between the ages of five and seven. In two preregistered studies (N = 251), children were given the opportunity to punish a transgressor at a cost to themselves. Punishment either exclusively satisfied retributive motives by only inflicting harm on the transgressor, or additionally satisfied consequentialist motives by teaching the transgressor a lesson. We found that children punished when doing so satisfied only retributive motives, and punished considerably more when doing so also satisfied consequentialist motives. Together, these findings provide evidence for the presence of both retributive and consequentialist motives in young children.

Discussion

Overall, these two preregistered studies provide clear evidence for the presence of both consequentialist and retributive motives in young children, supporting the naive pluralism hypothesis. Our observations cohere with past research showing that children between the ages of five and seven are willing to engage in costly third-party punishment, and reveal the motives behind children’s punitive behaviour. Children reliably engaged in purely retributive punishment: they punished solely to make an antisocial other sad without any possibility of deterring future antisocial behaviour.  Children did not punish in the non-communicative condition out of a preference for locking iPads in boxes, shown by the fact that children punished less in the baseline control condition. Furthermore, non-communicative punishment could not be explained by erroneous beliefs that punishing would teach the transgressor a lesson.  This demonstrates that young children are not pure consequentialists. Rather, our data suggest that young children engaged in costly third-party punishment for purely retributive reasons.

Wake Up Call for Republicans

Evangelicals Made a Bad Bargain With Trump

Peter Wehner

The Atlantic

Originally published 18, Oct 2020

Here is an excerpt:

But if politically conservative evangelicals have things they can rightly claim to have won, what has been lost?

For starters, by overlooking and excusing the president’s staggering array of personal and public corruptions, Trump’s evangelical supporters have forfeited the right to ever again argue that character counts in America’s political leaders. They might try, but if they do, they will be met with belly laughs. It’s not that their argument is invalidated; it is that because of their glaring hypocrisy, they have sabotaged their credibility in making the argument.

The conservative evangelical David French has reminded us that in 1998, during the Bill Clinton–Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a “Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials,” declaring that it was wrong to “excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails,” because “tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

It further affirmed that “moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders,” and “implore[d] our government leaders to live by the highest standards of morality both in their private actions and in their public duties, and thereby serve as models of moral excellence and character.”

“Be it finally RESOLVED,” the document continued, “that we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.”

It turns out that this resolution cannot have been based on deep scriptural convictions, as it was sold to the world (the Southern Baptist resolution included a dozen scriptural verses); it has to have been motivated, at least in large part, by partisanship. It’s quite possible, of course, that many of its supporters were blind to just how large a role partisanship and motivated reasoning played in the position they took. But there is simply no other way to explain the massive double standard.

The info is here.

Why Facts Are Not Enough: Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science

Hornsey MJ. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science

2020;29(6):583-591. 

doi:10.1177/0963721420969364

Abstract

Efforts to change the attitudes of creationists, antivaccination advocates, and climate skeptics by simply providing evidence have had limited success. Motivated reasoning helps make sense of this communication challenge: If people are motivated to hold a scientifically unorthodox belief, they selectively interpret evidence to reinforce their preferred position. In the current article, I summarize research on six psychological roots from which science-skeptical attitudes grow: (a) ideologies, (b) vested interests, (c) conspiracist worldviews, (d) fears and phobias, (e) personal-identity expression, and (f) social-identity needs. The case is made that effective science communication relies on understanding and attending to these underlying motivations.

(cut)

Conclusion

This article outlines six reasons people are motivated to hold views that are inconsistent with scientific consensus. This perspective helps explain why education and explication of data sometimes has a limited impact on science skeptics, but I am not arguing that education and facts are pointless. Quite the opposite: The provision of clear, objective information is the first and best line of defense against misinformation, mythmaking, and ignorance. However, for polarizing scientific issues—for example, climate change, vaccination, evolution, and in-vitro meat—it is clear that facts alone will not do the job. Successful communication around these issues will require sensitive understandings of the psychological motivations people have for rejecting science and the flexibility to devise communication frames that align with or circumvent these motivations.

Association of Physician Burnout With Suicidal Ideation and Medical Errors

Menon NK, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. 

JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028780. 

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28780

Key Points

Question  Is burnout associated with increased suicidal ideation and self-reported medical errors among physicians after accounting for depression?

Findings  In this cross-sectional study of 1354 US physicians, burnout was significantly associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation before but not after adjusting for depression and with increased odds of self-reported medical errors before and after adjusting for depression. In adjusted models, depression was significantly associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation but not self-reported medical errors.

Meaning  The findings suggest that depression but not burnout is directly associated with suicidal ideation among physicians.

Conclusions and Relevance  The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that depression but not physician burnout is directly associated with suicidal ideation. Burnout was associated with self-reported medical errors. Future investigation might examine whether burnout represents an upstream intervention target to prevent suicidal ideation by preventing depression.

The research is here.

'How Did We Get Here?' A Call For An Evangelical Reckoning On Trump

Rachel Martin

NPR.org

Originally poste 13 Jan 202

Here is an excerpt:

You write that Trump has burned down the Republican Party. What has he done to the evangelical Christian movement?

If you asked today, "What's an evangelical?" to most people, I would want them to say: someone who believes Jesus died on the cross for our sin and in our place and we're supposed to tell everyone about it. But for most people they'd say, "Oh, those are those people who are really super supportive of the president no matter what he does." And I don't think that's what we want to be known for. That's certainly not what I want to be known for. And I think as this presidency is ending in tatters as it is, hopefully more and more evangelicals will say, "You know, we should have seen earlier, we should have known better, we should have honored the Lord more in our actions these last four years."

Should ministers on Sunday mornings be delivering messages about how to sort fact from fiction and discouraging their parishioners from seeking truth in these darkest corners of the Internet peddling lies?

Absolutely, absolutely. Mark Noll wrote years ago a book called The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and he was talking about the lack of intellectual engagement in some corners of evangelicalism.

I think the scandal of the evangelical mind today is the gullibility that so many have been brought into — conspiracy theories, false reports and more — and so I think the Christian responsibility is we need to engage in what we call in the Christian tradition, discipleship. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." So Jesus literally identifies himself as the truth; therefore, if there ever should be a people who care about the truth, it should be people who call themselves followers of Jesus.

The info is here.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Gave Top Doctor $1.5 Million After He Was Forced to Resign Over Conflicts of Interest

Katie Thomas & Charles Ornstein

ProPublica

Originally published 22 Dec 20

Here is an excerpt:

After months of review, Memorial Sloan Kettering overhauled its conflict-of-interest policy, barring its top executives from serving on corporate boards of drug and health care companies and placing limits on how executives and top researchers could profit from work developed at the institution.

Like other major hospitals, Memorial Sloan Kettering’s finances have taken a hit during the coronavirus pandemic. For the first three quarters of 2020, the hospital reported an operating loss of $453 million compared with an operating profit of nearly $77 million in the first nine months of 2019. The hospital saw a decline in surgical procedures and clinic visits, as well as clinical trials and other research. The hospital did receive $100 million in relief funds as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Baselga wasn’t the only former official to receive severance from Memorial Sloan Kettering in 2019. It also paid more than $250,000 in severance to Avice Meehan, the hospital’s former chief communications officer, according to its IRS filing. Meehan declined to comment.

Laurie Styron, the executive director of CharityWatch, an independent watchdog group, said that hospitals often compensate their staff generously because they must attract highly trained and educated doctors who would be well-paid elsewhere. Still, she said, the multimillion-dollar sums can surprise donors, who typically give money to support research or patient care.

The info is here.

Physical Attractiveness in the Legal System

Rod Hollier

The Law Project

When I started looking into this subject, I predicted a person’s physical attractiveness would only have minor advantages. I was wrong.

In fact, I was so wrong, that in one study, the effects of physical attractiveness on judges were so influential, they fined unattractive criminals 304.88% higher than attractive criminals.

Surprising, I know.

Before we proceed, I want to address a few concerns of mine. Firstly, the information that you will read may cause some readers to feel unsettled. This is not my intention. Yes, it is disheartening. But the purpose of this article is to inform lawyers and other decision makers so that they can use the attractiveness bias to their advantage or to counter it.

A second concern of mine is that I don’t want to over-emphasise the attractiveness bias. Judges and jurors are affected by all kinds of cognitive distortions, such as emotive evidence, time of day, remorse of the defendant, socioeconomic status, race, gender, anchoring effect, and the contrast bias.

In the first section of this article, I give a ‘straight-to-the-point’ summary of the research conducted by 27 studies. Next, I enter into greater depth on the attractiveness bias and its effects on judges, jurors, and lawyers. Lastly, I provide research on the attractiveness bias in everyday life. Arguably, the last section is the most interesting.

The studies and further information is here.

APA President and CEO condemn violence at Capitol

Jennifer Kelly, PhD & Arthur Evans, PhD

American Psychological Association

January 8, 2021

Dear APA Members,

The recent storming of the U.S. Capitol has shocked our nation and the world. After 200 years of peaceful transfers of power between political parties, we were assaulted with images of rioters desecrating one of our greatest symbols of democracy. Regardless of our political views, we can agree that hate and violence toward each other are never acceptable. 

All of this took place as our nation has been emerging from a year dominated by trauma—a rapidly spreading virus, widespread divisiveness, and economic uncertainty. These layers of trauma are cumulative, and make it  difficult to function.

Psychology is of immense value in a time of such complex tragedy and trauma. It is vital that our science and professional expertise are utilized to help heal the political, economic, and ideological divides in our country.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories are at the root of this week’s tragedies. Despite every state certifying the results, and those results being validated by dozens of courts across the nation, repeated claims from the President that the presidential election was “rigged” or “stolen” drove Wednesday’s demonstrators to engage in the mayhem we witnessed. As psychologists, we understand the human propensity toward confirmation bias. We must continue to educate people on how to resist seeking out information that supports their own viewpoint and promote the use of techniques that encourage more objective consideration. The continued propagation of mistruths fosters tribalism, outrage, and rancor, which prevents us as individuals from seeing our shared humanity and interests.

There is much to do, and APA is taking action. We have been educating reporters and the public on the science underlying trauma and resilience, political psychology and polarization, misinformation and conspiracy theories, and how to talk to children about traumatic events. We have been working with members of Congress and both the outgoing and the incoming administrations to ensure that psychology and our science is not just at the table, but informing vital decisions. Our APA task force on police use of force is underway and releasing recommendations early this year. And our members—all of you—are using your expertise to help individuals, communities, and policymakers.

The work that we do as a field is critical. It is understandable if you are feeling shaken, angry, or emotionally exhausted. But recognize that—as a part of the APA community—you are not alone. We are all in this together and we must be intentional in taking care of ourselves and supporting each other as we work through this national trauma in all its forms. 

Our nation faces immense challenges that will not end on Inauguration Day. Psychology and our association must play a critical role in addressing those challenges. Most people—across the political spectrum—want the best for our country. Together, we must look toward the future. Psychologists offer science and expertise that can promote hope, resilience, and a path forward for a nation that is in trauma and in need of healing. APA is committed to doing that work with all of you.