Attributions for Brain Injured Persons' Actions: Effects of Cause of Injury and Familiarity

<p>Misunderstanding the behaviours of individuals with brain injuries is common and may result in negative consequences, especially when visible markers of brain injury are absent. Previous research on this issue manipulated the visibility of a brain injury with photographs of an adolescent with either a head scar or no scar (McClure, Buchanan, McDowall, & Wade, 2008). Scenarios stated that the adolescent had suffered a brain injury, followed by undesirable changes in four behaviours. Participants attributed the behaviors more to adolescence relative to brain injury when there was no scar than when there was a scar. The current research extends this research by examining the effects of visible markers of injury combined with three other factors: whether people are informed about the injury, the stated cause of injury, and familiarity with individuals with brain injury. Experiment 1 (N = 98) examined the effects of informing people about brain injury and found that when participants were not informed about the brain injury, visible markers of injury had no effect on attributions; participants made higher attributions to adolescence than brain injury in both scar conditions. In contrast, when participants were informed about the injury, in the no scar condition, attributions were higher for adolescence than brain injury whereas in the scar condition, both causes were rated equally. Experiment 2 (N = 148) examined the effects of putative causes of the injury and the participants' familiarity with the brain injury. The results found that visible markers of injury had no effect on attributions when the described cause was a brain tumour, but when the described cause was abusing illegal drugs, participants made higher attributions to brain injury than adolescence in the scar condition, with the reverse found in the no scar condition. In the scar condition, participants with high familiarity attributed the behaviours more to the brain injury than participants with low familiarity and participants with low familiarity attributed the behaviours more to adolescence than participants with high familiarity. In the no scar condition, participants in both familiarity groups attributed the behaviours equally to adolescence and brain injury. This research shows that the visibility of a brain injury, the etiology of an injury and familiarity with individuals with brain injury influence people's attributions for an adolescent's undesirable behavior. This information can be used by professionals and caregivers to inform survivors about these effects and used in campaigns to educate the public.</p>

Attributions for Brain Injured Persons' Actions: Effects of Cause of Injury and Familiarity

<p>Misunderstanding the behaviours of individuals with brain injuries is common and may result in negative consequences, especially when visible markers of brain injury are absent. Previous research on this issue manipulated the visibility of a brain injury with photographs of an adolescent with either a head scar or no scar (McClure, Buchanan, McDowall, & Wade, 2008). Scenarios stated that the adolescent had suffered a brain injury, followed by undesirable changes in four behaviours. Participants attributed the behaviors more to adolescence relative to brain injury when there was no scar than when there was a scar. The current research extends this research by examining the effects of visible markers of injury combined with three other factors: whether people are informed about the injury, the stated cause of injury, and familiarity with individuals with brain injury. Experiment 1 (N = 98) examined the effects of informing people about brain injury and found that when participants were not informed about the brain injury, visible markers of injury had no effect on attributions; participants made higher attributions to adolescence than brain injury in both scar conditions. In contrast, when participants were informed about the injury, in the no scar condition, attributions were higher for adolescence than brain injury whereas in the scar condition, both causes were rated equally. Experiment 2 (N = 148) examined the effects of putative causes of the injury and the participants' familiarity with the brain injury. The results found that visible markers of injury had no effect on attributions when the described cause was a brain tumour, but when the described cause was abusing illegal drugs, participants made higher attributions to brain injury than adolescence in the scar condition, with the reverse found in the no scar condition. In the scar condition, participants with high familiarity attributed the behaviours more to the brain injury than participants with low familiarity and participants with low familiarity attributed the behaviours more to adolescence than participants with high familiarity. In the no scar condition, participants in both familiarity groups attributed the behaviours equally to adolescence and brain injury. This research shows that the visibility of a brain injury, the etiology of an injury and familiarity with individuals with brain injury influence people's attributions for an adolescent's undesirable behavior. This information can be used by professionals and caregivers to inform survivors about these effects and used in campaigns to educate the public.</p>

Systematic Review of Interruption and Redirection Procedures for Autistic Individuals

Interruption and redirection (IR) procedures involve systematically disrupting an undesirable behavior and prompting an individual to engage in an alternative behavior (e.g., Ahearn et al., 2007). These procedures have been frequently assessed for reducing stereotypy for autistic individuals. The purposes of this review were to determine (a) for whom and under what conditions physical and verbal IR procedures are assessed; (b) what outcomes are measured; (c) whether results vary by intervention characteristics, dependent variable types, design quality, and publication status; and (d) the extent to which generalization and maintenance outcomes are measured and show positive effects. IR interventions were moderately successful for reducing stereotypy but were less effective for improving appropriate vocalizations and functional engagement. Generalization and maintenance outcomes, when measured, were poor. Results indicate the need for alternative or augmentative procedures that focus on engagement in meaningful interactions and activities.

Deterrence Effects of Enforcement Schemes: An Experimental Study

Private and public organizations are interested in finding effective ways to reduce crime and promote ethical behavior without investing heavy resources into monitoring and compliance. In this paper, we experimentally study how revealing different information about a fine distribution affects deterrence of an undesirable behavior. We use a novel incentive-compatible elicitation method to observe subjects lying (the undesirable behavior) and quantify the extent to which this behavior responds to information structures. We find that punishment schemes that communicate only partial information (the minimum fine in particular) are more effective than full information schemes at deterring lying. We explore the mechanism driving this result and link it to subjects’ beliefs about their own versus the average expected fine in treatments with partial information. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis.

Small-volume extensional rheology of concentrated protein and protein-excipient solutions

We develop a small-volume extensional rheology device to measure concentrated protein formulations, and show that excipients intended to stabilize proteins in shear flow can cause undesirable behavior in extensional flows.

Preventing undesirable behavior of intelligent machines

Intelligent machines using machine learning algorithms are ubiquitous, ranging from simple data analysis and pattern recognition tools to complex systems that achieve superhuman performance on various tasks. Ensuring that they do not exhibit undesirable behavior—that they do not, for example, cause harm to humans—is therefore a pressing problem. We propose a general and flexible framework for designing machine learning algorithms. This framework simplifies the problem of specifying and regulating undesirable behavior. To show the viability of this framework, we used it to create machine learning algorithms that precluded the dangerous behavior caused by standard machine learning algorithms in our experiments. Our framework for designing machine learning algorithms simplifies the safe and responsible application of machine learning.

When More Is Not Better: Three Common Mistakes in Health Messaging Interventions

Health messaging interventions frequently make three well-intentioned but mistaken choices in their communications strategies. To increase their persuasiveness, these messages frequently call attention to the greatest possible numbers of people engaging in undesirable behavior, victims of this behavior, and reasons why one should change the behavior. We raise recent research suggesting how and why the intuitively attractive more-is-better heuristic can be unproductive, and suggest ways to overcome these pitfalls.

Improving Classroom Management Issues Through Your Carefully Chosen Approaches and Prompts

Different teachers can have widely varying classroom management results with the same set of students. There are some explanations for this occurrence, but one explanation that most people could agree on is the teachers’ language they use with their students. This column, the second in a series about classroom management issues, is about which approaches and prompts are effective for preventing and quelling undesirable behavior. Specific topics include the intersection of culturally responsive teaching and classroom management, fostering respect among students, and using more assertive but still respectful prompts with students.

Spiraling downward: The reciprocal relation between attitude toward political behavioral targeting and privacy concerns

Tailored political messages are increasingly prevalent in election time, but we know little about how people perceive such data-driven and potentially privacy-infringing techniques. This article examines how demographics relate to privacy concerns and attitudes toward “political behavioral targeting” (PBT), how privacy concerns and attitudes toward PBT relate over time, and explore their relation with autonomy, electoral deliberation, and chilling effects. Using a three-wave panel study, administered in the Netherlands ( N = 879), we examine a potential reciprocal relation between attitude toward PBT and privacy concerns, which may form a negative reinforcing spiral dynamic over time. This dynamic could result in undesirable behavior of the voter from a democratic viewpoint (e.g. chilling effects). We find that demographics fall short in explaining privacy concerns. More importantly, we find evidence for a reinforcing spiral dynamic and, by doing so, contribute to the discussion about the threats and promises of PBT to society.