Co‐authorship Networks in Swiss Political Research

Co‐authorship is an important indicator of scientific collaboration. Co‐authorship networks are composed of sub‐communities, and researchers can gain visibility by connecting these insulated subgroups. This article presents a comprehensive co‐authorship network analysis of Swiss political science. Three levels are addressed: disciplinary cohesion and structure at large, communities, and the integrative capacity of individual researchers. The results suggest that collaboration exists across geographical and language borders even though different regions focus on complementary publication strategies. The subfield of public policy and administration has the highest integrative capacity. Co‐authorship is a function of several factors, most importantly being in the same subfield. At the individual level, the analysis identifies researchers who belong to the “inner circle” of Swiss political science and who link different communities. In contrast to previous research, the analysis is based on the full set of publications of all political researchers employed in Switzerland in 2013, including past publications.     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

论海上保险中被保险人告知义务之界限

《中华人民共和国海商法》第222条第2款是一个对海上保险中被保险人告知义务履行范围的限制。根据该条款,在保险人没有做出询问的情况下,对于保险人知道或者一个谨慎的保险人在通常业务中应当知道的情况,被保险人无需告知。保险人的法定代表人、高级管理人员、承保部门的负责人以及具体做出承保决定的人对有关情况的知情应该归属于公司。公众知晓的情况,保险人通常承保的保险标的之一般属性,或通常承保的贸易之一般实务或贸易限制或通常可能发生的状况等,属于保险人应当知道的情况。     

Relational Victimization,Callous-Unemotional Traits,and Hostile Attribution Bias Among Preadolescents

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of callous-unemotional traits, hostile attribution bias, and relational victimization experiences among 228 Greek preadolescent students attending the last two primary school grades. No significant gender differences were found. Correlations showed positive associations among relational victimization, callous-unemotional traits, and hostile attribution bias. Multiple regression indicated that preadolescents with high callous and unemotional traits and hostile attribution bias who experienced physical aggression were more likely to be relationally victimized. Results emphasize the role of both personal and social-cognitive factors in relational victimization, and are discussed in terms of their practical implications.     

Antisocial features are not predictive of symptom exaggeration in forensic patients

Purpose

To investigate the predictive value of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and features of ASPD (i.e., lack of remorse, blame externalization, and deceitfulness) for symptom exaggeration.

Methods

A sample of forensic psychiatric patients (N = 57) was asked to complete several self‐report instruments (measuring symptom exaggeration, lack of remorse, blame externalization, and offense minimization) and a semi‐structured interview about their most recent offense. To quantify patients’ deceitfulness, the information collected via the semi‐structured interview was checked against the official records of patient's offenses. Additionally, patient's mental disorders and the extent to which patients denied their delinquency were determined by gathering clinician's judgement on this matter from patient records. The relation between symptom exaggeration and the potential predictors of symptom exaggeration was examined through correlational analyses and cross‐tabulation of prevalence rates of symptom exaggeration with prevalence rates of the potential predictors.

Results

Antisocial personality disorder was not a useful predicator of symptom exaggeration. Also, patients who showed little regret for their offenses, or tended to blame their offenses on external factors, or minimized their delinquency, or were inaccurate when reporting their delinquency, had similar levels of symptom exaggeration as those without these tendencies.

Conclusions

Neither ASPD nor antisocial traits, including lack of remorse, blame externalization, and deceitfulness, were meaningfully related to symptom exaggeration and therefore should have no place in the assessment of symptom validity or the detection of malingering. On the contrary; focusing on antisocial traits as indicators of symptom exaggeration is likely to result in large portions of misclassifications.     

Partisanship,attribution and approval in a public health shock

Political scientists have long agreed that partisanship can bias how voters evaluate government performance and attribute responsibility. However, less is known about how – and to what extent – these biases work across different types of voters, or how they respond to positive or non-partisan policy outcomes. In this research note we address these questions, focusing on how voters respond to a positive, non-partisan public health shock: the successful early rollout of Covid-19 vaccinations in England. Through a pre-registered information experiment embedded in the British Election Study (N > 6000), we test how voters respond to claims that the quasi-independent National Health Service, rather than the government, deserved credit for the success of the programme. On average, subjects do attribute less responsibility to government, but this has no downstream effect on general approval. Exploratory heterogeneity analyses suggest that government and opposition supporters, as well as historic swing voters, respond homogeneously to our intervention. Our findings are not fully explained by rational or selective frameworks of responsibility attribution, and add nuance to existing experimental work on the political effects of the pandemic.     

Social explanations for job insecurity: Group influences on causal attributions

Job insecurity—a concern about the future existence of the job—is one of those unexpected events which lead to a search for causal explanations. This paper pays attention to the social nature of these attributions. The social character of the causal attribution process investigated here appears from the kind of attributions that employees make and the degree in which causal attributions are influenced by social ideas shared by colleagues and other groups. We research these social explanations for job insecurity on the basis of the results of a survey of job insecurity and causal attributions among 311 employees in the Netherlands.     

Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?

The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.