Feline sporotrichosis

Over the past two decades, many Brazilian cities have been reporting an increasing incidence and spread of feline sporotrichosis. The disease is neglected, and little is known about the causal processes underlying its epidemic occurrence. This study characterized the spatiotemporal dynamics of feline sporotrichosis in Guarulhos. Moreover, we proposed and tested a causal explanation for its occurrence and zoonotic transmission, giving a key role to social vulnerability. A direct acyclic graph represented the causal explanation, while Bayesian spatial models supported its test as well as the attribution of a risk-based priority index to the census tracts of the city. Between 2011 and 2017, the disease grew exponentially and the spatial spread increased. The model findings showed a dose-response pattern between an index of social vulnerability and the incidence of feline sporotrichosis. This pattern was not strictly monotonic, so some census tracts received a higher priority index than others with higher vulnerability. According to our causal explanation, there will not be effective prevention of feline and zoonotic sporotrichosis as long as social inequities continue imposing precarious livelihoods.

Beyond dynamic risk factors: Towards a comprehensive explanation of offending

<p>The current conceptualisation of dynamic risk factors (DRF) for criminal offending is problematic. There have been significant conceptual issues highlighted in this domain, however, until recently addressing these has not been a priority for researchers. Instead, research has predominantly focused on the success of DRF in predicting reoffending and the effectiveness of treatment programmes that target these factors. DRF are typically defined as aspects of individuals and their environments that are associated with an increased likelihood of reoffending, and they are widely considered ‘plausible causes’ of criminal behaviour. It is acknowledged that this definition encompasses a wide range of individual characteristics, social processes, behaviours, and environmental features, and that these vary in their ability to explain and predict offending. The more recent interest in features that reduce risk has prompted similar discussions about the concept of protective factors (PF). Given the frequent use of, and interest in, these foundational concepts it is timely to investigate them in depth, and to address two key issues. First, both DRF and PF are broad category labels that encompass a diverse (and largely unspecified) range of psychological and contextual features and processes. Second, without a clear understanding of what exactly these constructs are, it is difficult to effectively link them to correctional research and practice. I will begin this thesis by setting out the problems with the reliance on DRF to explain offending. I will do this by exploring recent empirical findings concerning their relationship with recidivism and outlining numerous conceptual problems which make DRF poor candidates for causal explanation. I will then suggest a shift in focus, from these crime correlates to human nature and agency, and argue that this perspective is essential in explaining any behaviour. I will present a preliminary model based on agency and demonstrate the utility of this perspective in reconceptualising DRF as aspects of goal-directed behaviour. Next, I will develop a framework for continuing this theoretical research and adding depth to theories of agency. Finally, I will discuss the implications of agency theories for forensic interventions, including their integration with widely used rehabilitation models. I will conclude with an evaluation of the approaches developed throughout this thesis and make some suggestions for future research. This research holds promise in directing the field away from the otherwise inevitable theoretical ‘dead end’.</p>

Beyond dynamic risk factors: Towards a comprehensive explanation of offending

<p>The current conceptualisation of dynamic risk factors (DRF) for criminal offending is problematic. There have been significant conceptual issues highlighted in this domain, however, until recently addressing these has not been a priority for researchers. Instead, research has predominantly focused on the success of DRF in predicting reoffending and the effectiveness of treatment programmes that target these factors. DRF are typically defined as aspects of individuals and their environments that are associated with an increased likelihood of reoffending, and they are widely considered ‘plausible causes’ of criminal behaviour. It is acknowledged that this definition encompasses a wide range of individual characteristics, social processes, behaviours, and environmental features, and that these vary in their ability to explain and predict offending. The more recent interest in features that reduce risk has prompted similar discussions about the concept of protective factors (PF). Given the frequent use of, and interest in, these foundational concepts it is timely to investigate them in depth, and to address two key issues. First, both DRF and PF are broad category labels that encompass a diverse (and largely unspecified) range of psychological and contextual features and processes. Second, without a clear understanding of what exactly these constructs are, it is difficult to effectively link them to correctional research and practice. I will begin this thesis by setting out the problems with the reliance on DRF to explain offending. I will do this by exploring recent empirical findings concerning their relationship with recidivism and outlining numerous conceptual problems which make DRF poor candidates for causal explanation. I will then suggest a shift in focus, from these crime correlates to human nature and agency, and argue that this perspective is essential in explaining any behaviour. I will present a preliminary model based on agency and demonstrate the utility of this perspective in reconceptualising DRF as aspects of goal-directed behaviour. Next, I will develop a framework for continuing this theoretical research and adding depth to theories of agency. Finally, I will discuss the implications of agency theories for forensic interventions, including their integration with widely used rehabilitation models. I will conclude with an evaluation of the approaches developed throughout this thesis and make some suggestions for future research. This research holds promise in directing the field away from the otherwise inevitable theoretical ‘dead end’.</p>

Reducing Stigma Toward Schizophrenia: An Investigation into what Information is Most Effective at Decreasing Negative Attitudes to Schizophrenia

<p>Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that manifests psychotic symptoms and largely affects an individual’s day to day functioning (Silva et al., 2017). In addition to the incapacitating symptoms of this disorder, patients with schizophrenia face another central concern: stigma (Stuart, 2016). In light of this, an abundance of previous research has been dedicated to discerning the most effective and feasible methods to reduce stigma towards mental illness (Corrigan, 2001). In particular, a large body of research has suggested that education - or more specifically, educating people about the causes of schizophrenia - may be an effective way to achieve this goal (e.g. Boysen & Vogel, 2008). So far, two causal explanations have dominated the literature; psychosocial causal explanations and biogenetic causal explanations. However, only a small number of experimental studies have directly compared the teaching of these opposing two models on levels of stigma (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002). The findings from these studies show that the effects of causal explanations on stigma are contradictory, thus highlighting the need for another experiment to discern the actual successfulness of these methods at reducing negative attitudes towards schizophrenia. Additionally, due to the mixed findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of etiological information at lowering stigma, it seems warranted that further exploration into novel, educational teachings is conducted to establish whether causal information really is the most appropriate educational explanation to enlist if stigma reduction is the end goal. In the current research, two experiments were conducted where participants were provided different explanations for schizophrenia (both causal and non-causal in nature) or no explanation at all. Participants received either a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial causal explanation of schizophrenia, or a creative explanation for schizophrenia, (Experiment One). Comparatively, in Experiment Two participants were provided either a causal explanation for schizophrenia (biogenetic, psychosocial, epigenetic) or, no information at all. Findings from both experiments suggested there were no significant differences between the levels of prejudice and discrimination of participants who saw information which was causal in nature, and those who did not. Further, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that different causal explanations have varying effects on stigma. Moreover, the previously untested explanations for schizophrenia did not produce stigma reducing effects. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Reducing Stigma Toward Schizophrenia: An Investigation into what Information is Most Effective at Decreasing Negative Attitudes to Schizophrenia

<p>Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that manifests psychotic symptoms and largely affects an individual’s day to day functioning (Silva et al., 2017). In addition to the incapacitating symptoms of this disorder, patients with schizophrenia face another central concern: stigma (Stuart, 2016). In light of this, an abundance of previous research has been dedicated to discerning the most effective and feasible methods to reduce stigma towards mental illness (Corrigan, 2001). In particular, a large body of research has suggested that education - or more specifically, educating people about the causes of schizophrenia - may be an effective way to achieve this goal (e.g. Boysen & Vogel, 2008). So far, two causal explanations have dominated the literature; psychosocial causal explanations and biogenetic causal explanations. However, only a small number of experimental studies have directly compared the teaching of these opposing two models on levels of stigma (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002). The findings from these studies show that the effects of causal explanations on stigma are contradictory, thus highlighting the need for another experiment to discern the actual successfulness of these methods at reducing negative attitudes towards schizophrenia. Additionally, due to the mixed findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of etiological information at lowering stigma, it seems warranted that further exploration into novel, educational teachings is conducted to establish whether causal information really is the most appropriate educational explanation to enlist if stigma reduction is the end goal. In the current research, two experiments were conducted where participants were provided different explanations for schizophrenia (both causal and non-causal in nature) or no explanation at all. Participants received either a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial causal explanation of schizophrenia, or a creative explanation for schizophrenia, (Experiment One). Comparatively, in Experiment Two participants were provided either a causal explanation for schizophrenia (biogenetic, psychosocial, epigenetic) or, no information at all. Findings from both experiments suggested there were no significant differences between the levels of prejudice and discrimination of participants who saw information which was causal in nature, and those who did not. Further, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that different causal explanations have varying effects on stigma. Moreover, the previously untested explanations for schizophrenia did not produce stigma reducing effects. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

A Defence of Manipulationist Noncausal Explanation: The Case for Intervention Liberalism

Recent years have seen growing interest in modifying interventionist accounts of causal explanation in order to characterise noncausal explanation. However, one surprising element of such accounts is that they have typically jettisoned the core feature of interventionism: interventions. Indeed, the prevailing opinion within the philosophy of science literature suggests that interventions exclusively demarcate causal relationships. This position is so prevalent that, until now, no one has even thought to name it. We call it “intervention puritanism”. In this paper, we mount the first sustained defence of the idea that there are distinctively noncausal explanations which can be characterized in terms of possible interventions; and thus, argue that I-puritanism is false. We call the resultant position “intervention liberalism” (I-liberalism, for short). While many have followed Woodward (Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) in committing to I-pluralism, we trace support for I-liberalism back to the work of Kim (in: Kim (ed) Supervenience and mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1974/1993). Furthermore, we analyse two recent sources of scepticism regarding I-liberalism: debate surrounding mechanistic constitution; and attempts to provide a monistic account of explanation. We show that neither literature provides compelling reasons for adopting I-puritanism. Finally, we present a novel taxonomy of available positions upon the role of possible interventions in explanation: weak causal imperialism; strong causal imperialism; monist intervention puritanism; pluralist intervention puritanism; monist intervention liberalism; and finally, the specific position defended in this paper, pluralist intervention liberalism.

Explanation and Understanding as Methods of Historical and Biographical Cognition

Traditionally, explanation is considered to be the method of natural sciences and understanding to be the method of humanities. However, this paper considers both to be methods of history. Namely, the author focuses on how explanation and understanding function in history in general and in biography in particular. Referring to biographical realm helps explicate the specifics of explanation and understanding as well as broaden the view about their uses in humanities. In the first part, the author refers to explanation and understanding in history as such. In particular, causal explanation (explanatory sketch by Karl Hempel) and rational explanation (history of ideas by Mark Bevir) are considered in the paper along with the relationship of hermeneutic notion of understanding with the two. The second part of the paper deals with the functioning of explanation and understanding in biographical research. Namely, it considers biographical understanding by Tilmann Habermas and Neşe Hatiboğlu as well as cases of causal and rational explanations in biographical research. In particular, it is shown that while causal explanation occurs in biography as explanatory sketch, it is not a separate distinct notion. It is also shown that rational explanation is used in biographical reconstructions in order to clarify the influence of particular events on beliefs of people. Based on the materials involved, the author demonstrates the specifics of explanation and understanding in biography compared to their usage in historical cognition in general.

Destigmatising Schizophrenia: An Investigation into the Effects of Different Causal Explanations upon Stigma

<p>While many people with mental illnesses are stigmatised, those with schizophrenia are the most severely stigmatised group (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Marie & Miles, 2008; Pescosolido et al., 1999). A vast body of psychology research has been devoted to investigating how education – particularly education about the causes of schizophrenia – can reduce this stigma that is attached to schizophrenia. While there is great support for the notion that education in general can reduce stigma (e.g. Costin & Kerr, 1962; Griffiths, Christensen, Jorm, Evans, & Groves, 2004; Ritterfeld & Jin, 2006), there is still disagreement regarding exactly which set of causal factors the general public should be educated about – biogenetic or psychosocial? Until now, only three previous studies (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002) have experimentally compared teaching a purely biogenetic causal explanation to teaching a purely psychosocial causal explanation. The results of this research appear to be somewhat contradictory leading to the need for another, more robustly designed experiment. In the present research, two experiments were conducted in which participants’ level of stigma was measured after they were given a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial explanation, or given no causal explanation. It was predicted that participants given a causal explanation would show reduced levels of stigma compared to participants given no causal information, and that there would be a significant difference in the stigma reduction effectiveness between types of causal explanation. Contrary to these expectations, the results of Experiment One showed no reduction in stigma when participants were given a causal explanation compared to no causal explanation, and revealed no significant differences in stigma reduction efficacy between the biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanations. Experiment Two utilised the same basic paradigm as Experiment One but with the addition of more convincing causal explanations and a manipulation check. The results of Experiment Two gave evidence that both a biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanation successfully reduces discrimination compared to giving no information on the causes of schizophrenia. In addition, a purely biogenetic causal explanation was also found to successfully reduce belief in other stereotypes compared to a psychosocial causal explanation or no causal explanation. Thus, I conclude that stigma can be effectively reduced by providing education about the causes of schizophrenia, and that a biogenetic causal explanation is a more effective stigma reduction tool as it reduces multiple types of stigma. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Destigmatising Schizophrenia: An Investigation into the Effects of Different Causal Explanations upon Stigma

<p>While many people with mental illnesses are stigmatised, those with schizophrenia are the most severely stigmatised group (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Marie & Miles, 2008; Pescosolido et al., 1999). A vast body of psychology research has been devoted to investigating how education – particularly education about the causes of schizophrenia – can reduce this stigma that is attached to schizophrenia. While there is great support for the notion that education in general can reduce stigma (e.g. Costin & Kerr, 1962; Griffiths, Christensen, Jorm, Evans, & Groves, 2004; Ritterfeld & Jin, 2006), there is still disagreement regarding exactly which set of causal factors the general public should be educated about – biogenetic or psychosocial? Until now, only three previous studies (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002) have experimentally compared teaching a purely biogenetic causal explanation to teaching a purely psychosocial causal explanation. The results of this research appear to be somewhat contradictory leading to the need for another, more robustly designed experiment. In the present research, two experiments were conducted in which participants’ level of stigma was measured after they were given a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial explanation, or given no causal explanation. It was predicted that participants given a causal explanation would show reduced levels of stigma compared to participants given no causal information, and that there would be a significant difference in the stigma reduction effectiveness between types of causal explanation. Contrary to these expectations, the results of Experiment One showed no reduction in stigma when participants were given a causal explanation compared to no causal explanation, and revealed no significant differences in stigma reduction efficacy between the biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanations. Experiment Two utilised the same basic paradigm as Experiment One but with the addition of more convincing causal explanations and a manipulation check. The results of Experiment Two gave evidence that both a biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanation successfully reduces discrimination compared to giving no information on the causes of schizophrenia. In addition, a purely biogenetic causal explanation was also found to successfully reduce belief in other stereotypes compared to a psychosocial causal explanation or no causal explanation. Thus, I conclude that stigma can be effectively reduced by providing education about the causes of schizophrenia, and that a biogenetic causal explanation is a more effective stigma reduction tool as it reduces multiple types of stigma. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>