Using Drugs or Non-Drugs Alternatives to Alter Mental States in the Online, Virtual Era.

Background: In the 1970s a body of literature was generated advocating the alternatives approach for drug misuse prevention and rehabilitation which encouraged healthy nonchemical behaviors leading to reinforcing moods. Although this behaviorally oriented approach was overshadowed with the popularity of cognitive therapy in the 1980s, many of the recommended alternative behaviors remain embedded in cognitive approaches for drug misuse prevention and rehabilitation. One objective of the present study was to replicate, in part, two studies conducted in the 1970s which examined usage patterns of non-drug alternatives. A second objective was to explore of the use of newer technologies like the internet and the smartphone to alter emotional states. A third objective was to examine perceived stress and discrimination experiences on preferences for drug and non-drug alternatives. Methods: Three questionnaires were administered: use of drugs and non-drug alternatives in response to everyday emotions; the Everyday Discrimination Scale; and the Perceived Stress Scale. A total of 483 adults participated; their mean age was 39 years. Results: The results revealed that non-drug alternatives were preferred to drugs in treating experiences of anxiety, depression, and hostility, and to induce pleasure. Drugs were used most often to deal with pain. Experiences of discrimination increased perceptions of stress, and stress, in turn, affected the use of drugs to cope with a range of emotions. Social media and virtual activities were not preferred methods for altering negative moods. Conclusions: Social media may actually be a contributor or cause of distress, rather than a means for reducing it.

In a moral dilemma, choose the one you love: Impartial actors are seen as less moral than partial ones.

Although impartiality and concern for the greater good are lauded by utilitarian philosophies, it was predicted that when values conflict, those who acted impartially rather than partially would be viewed as less moral. Across four studies, using life-or-death scenarios and more mundane ones, support for the idea that relationship obligations are important in moral attribution was found. In Studies 1-3, participants rated an impartial actor as less morally good and his or her action as less moral compared to a partial actor. Experimental and correlational evidence showed the effect was driven by inferences about an actor's capacity for empathy and compassion. In Study 4, the relationship obligation hypothesis was refined. The data suggested that violations of relationship obligations are perceived as moral as long as strong alternative justifications sanction them. Discussion centres on the importance of relationships in understanding moral attributions.

Introducing the Date and Acquaintance Rape Avoidance Scale.

We present the Date and Acquaintance Rape Avoidance Scale (DARAS). The DARAS is a measure of a woman's behaviors used to avoid date and acquaintance rape. Three factor structures were possible. The DARAS may have measured several factors related to alcohol and drug use, self-defense, and date behaviors; 2 factors related to behaviors to avoid acquaintance versus date rape; or a single factor that represented general vigilance. The data revealed a highly reliable, 63 item single factor that was correlated with stranger rape avoidance, rejection of rape myths, hostile sexist beliefs about men, and benevolent sexist beliefs about women. The creation of the DARAS adds to the growing body of research on rape avoidance. The DARAS is key to understanding the behaviors women employ to avoid date rape. Rather than placing the responsibility for rape on the victim, the DARAS was developed as a theoretical and applied tool that can be used to improve theory and construct rape education and prevention programs.

Mind attributions about moral actors: intentionality is greater given coherent cues.

Attributions about intentionality and the capacity for agency were explored from coherence perspectives. Coherence perspectives suggest that social perceivers use information about an actor's motives, traits, and the outcomes of action to create meaningful explanations of action. According to the typecasting theory, intentionality and agency attributions should be related and predicted by one's role in a moral dyad. Across four studies, with different operational definitions of moral dyads and agency, we found evidence in favour of coherence perspectives. Social perceivers relied on mental states, character, and behavioural cues to make intentionality judgments. Further, intentionality attributions about behaviours were unrelated to inferences about agency. The discussion centres on the importance of coherent explanation in moral judgment.

Intentional inferences are not more likely than unintentional ones: some evidence against the intentionality bias hypothesis.

We conducted a study to test the hypothesis that inferences about intentionality are biased toward an intentional interpretation. Contrary to previous research, participants were no more likely to judge ambiguous actions as intentional in a speeded compared to an unspeeded condition. Further, participants were faster to respond and more consistent in responding to unintentional rather than intentional actions.

Inferences about character and motive influence intentionality attributions about side effects.

In two studies, we predicted and found that inferences about motive and character influence intentionality attributions about foreseeable consequences of action (i.e., side effects). First, we show that inferences about intentionality are greater for good side effects than bad side effects when a target person's character is described positively. In Study 2, we manipulated information about a target person and found that inferences about intentionality were greater when side effects were consistent with a target person's character and motives. Overall, our data cast doubt on the generality of the side-effect effect. We discuss our findings and their implications for future research on intentionality and social perception.

Intentionality attributions about perfect and imperfect duty violations.

Intentionality attributions were explored by drawing on the distinction between perfect and imperfect moral duties. Previous research has shown that perfect duty violations carry greater attributional weight than imperfect duty violations (Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999; Trafimow, Bromgard, Finlay, & Ketelaar, 2005). In Studies 1 and 2, the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties was replicated with intentionality judgments, and perfect duty violations received higher intentionality attributions than imperfect duty violations. In Study 3 this effect was reversed by manipulating information about an agent's mental intentions or plans to perform a behavior. That is, participants attributed less intentionality to perfect duty violations compared to imperfect duty violations when a mental intention to perform the behavior was absent.