Search

The newly adopted EU AI Act represents a pivotal milestone that heralds a new era of AI regulation across industries. With its broad territorial scope and applicability, this comprehensive legislation establishes stringent requirements for AI systems. In this article, we analyze the AI Act's impact on digital medical products, such as medical devices: How does the AI Act apply to AI/ML-enabled medical devices? How are they classified? What are the compliance requirements? And, what are the obligations of 'providers' of these AI systems? After addressing these foundational questions, we discuss the AI Act's broader implications for the future of regulated digital medical products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hierarchical groups shape social, political, and personal life. This paper concerns the question of how individuals within such groups can be responsible. The paper explores how individual responsibility can be partially grounded in difference-making. The paper concentrates on the control condition of responsibility and takes into view three distinct phenomena of responsibility in hierarchical groups. First, a superior can be responsible for outcomes that her subordinates bring about. Second, a subordinate can be responsible although she is unable to prevent the outcome she brings about. Third, a superior can sometimes be responsible to a greater degree than her subordinates. It is argued that difference-making, as an interpretation of the control condition that partially grounds responsibility, accounts for all three of these phenomena within a limited but significant range of circumstances and can hence partially ground individual moral responsibility in hierarchical groups. The paper provides an element of a theory of individual responsibility to complement theories of corporate responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I explore the question of how to ground the responsibility of agents in some tricky cases involving multiple agents who act in a non-coordinated fashion. These are scenarios where no single agent has the individual ability to make a difference to a harmful outcome, but where the outcome would have been avoided if they had all acted as they should have (thus, the agents collectively made a difference to the outcome's occurrence). I argue that an important source of the problem is that it's hard to motivate a concept of cause that can be behind the agents' responsibility in these cases. I illustrate the problem with a particular example: Yablo's proportionality criterion on causation. I then sketch a possible solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinary study in neurobiology, liberation psychology, and social work highlight the ways in which the brain is related to various cognitive, personality, and behavioral characteristics within a cultural context by blurring lines between dimensions, such as nature and nurture, person and environment, and micro and macro. This paper considers study findings that generate potential clinical social work strategies that are particularly relevant for communities of color experiencing ethno-racial trauma. The purpose of this paper is to support clinical practitioners' efforts to use holistic approaches and practices by incorporating the "bio" component of the biopsychosocial paradigm as it relates to racism. There are at least three pathways by which racism may produce neurobiological consequences that affect the biopsychosocial functioning of populations of color: (a) socio-structural/environmental, (b) stress and/or trauma, and (c) epigenetics. The Flint, Michigan water crisis—wherein the local government allowed lead to contaminate the city's drinking water causing negative health (brain and body) consequences for Flint residents, a predominantly Black and Brown community—presents an example of the intersecting pathways and autopoietic nature of racism that infects relationships, institutions and systems; causes dehumanizing affects; and produces ill effects as evidenced by racial health inequities. The issues, such as racial health inequities, that social workers struggle to resolve tend to be complex and multi-dimensional. Therefore, comprehensive practice is needed to support healthy biopsychosocial functioning. As such, this paper offers Critical Clinical Social Work Practice (CCSWP) informed by the Critical Transformative Potential Development (CTPD) framework. CTPD centers a trauma-informed and healing-centered approach to CCSWP by transforming consciousness into action to change self, relationships, and environment; ideally, working cyclically from the molecular to the macro. Given the field's enduring commitment to social justice, the biopsychosocial model, and the person-in-environment perspective, social work is in a unique position to critically consider how brain health (bio) is affected by trauma (psycho) stemming from racism (social). These multi-level (molecular to macro) considerations empower clinical social workers to innovate integrated strategies that can overcome complex challenges perpetuating racial health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Discharge "against medical advice" (AMA) in the obstetric population is overall under-studied but disproportionally affects marginalized populations and is associated with worse perinatal outcomes. Reasons for discharges AMA are not well understood. The objective of this study is to identify the obstacles that prevent obstetric patients from accepting recommended care and highlight the structural reasons behind AMA discharges. Methods: Electronic health records of patients admitted to antepartum, peripartum, or postpartum services between 2008 and 2018 who left "AMA" were reviewed. Progress notes from clinicians and social workers were extracted and analyzed. Reasons behind discharge were categorized using qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Fifty-seven (0.12%) obstetric patients were discharged AMA. Reasons for discharge were organized into two overarching themes: extrinsic (50.9%) and intrinsic (40.4%) obstacles to accepting care. Eleven participants (19.3%) had no reason documented for their discharge. Extrinsic obstacles included childcare, familial responsibilities, and other obligations. Intrinsic obstacles included disagreement with provider regarding medical condition or plan, emotional distress, mistrust or discontent with care team, and substance use. Discussion: The term "AMA" casts blame on individual patients and fails to represent the systemic barriers to staying in care. Obstetric patients were found to encounter both extrinsic and intrinsic obstacles that led them to leave AMA. Healthcare providers and institutions can implement strategies that ameliorate structural barriers. Partnering with patients to prevent discharges AMA would improve maternal and infant health and progress towards reproductive justice. Significance: What is Already Known on this Subject?: Obstetric patients who leave "against medical advice (AMA)" have worse perinatal outcomes and often are from marginalized communities. The term, AMA, is also stigmatizing, placing blame on individual decision making rather than systemic barriers to access. Reasons for leaving AMA are not well understood in the obstetric population. What does this Study add?: We reframe the discussion around leaving AMA by describing obstacles in accepting care. Patients experienced both extrinsic and intrinsic obstacles to accepting medical care, from childcare issues to disagreement with treatment plan. Partnering with patients to overcome these obstacles would improve maternal and infant health and increase equity and reproductive justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article delves into the implications of neurotechnologies for the philosophical debates surrounding free will and moral responsibility. Tracing the concept from ancient religious and philosophical roots, we discuss how recent neurotechnological advancements (e.g. optogenetics, fMRI and machine learning, predictive diagnostics, et al.) challenge traditional notions of autonomy. Although neurotechnologies aim to enhance autonomy in the strict sense – as self-determination – they risk reducing or changing the broader notion of autonomy, which involves personal authenticity. We also submit that, in a world with an altered or limited concept of free will, humans should still be held accountable for actions executed through their bodies. By examining the dynamic between choice and responsibility, we emphasize the shift in technology ethics, moral philosophy, and the broader legal landscape in response to the advancement of neurotechnologies. By bringing the neurotechnological innovations into the world, neuroscientists not only change the technological landscape but also partake in long-standing moral narratives about freedom, justice, and responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, neurophysiological research has pushed the concept of free will towards a reductionist interpretation, largely avoiding the concept of a freely willing agent. This paper explores the ongoing debate surrounding free will, highlighting the contrasting perspectives of determinism, indeterminism (libertarianism), and compatibilism. It questions how individuals, particularly those adhering to deterministic viewpoints, can ethically navigate a world defined by causal relationships. The paper argues that reductionist approaches struggle to account for ethical responsibility and the human experience of making choices. While compatibilism offers a middle ground, asserting that actions in line with one's desires are free and thus ethically accountable, this stance is scrutinized for its potential limitations in answering questions about personal responsibility. Specifically, it is argued that compatibilism may not be the ideal framework for a neurophysiologist confronted with ethical dilemmas, thus leaving room for the re-examination of indeterminism. Through this discussion, the paper aims to contribute to a nuanced understanding of free will that incorporates both the scientific and philosophical dimensions of human decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The arrival of “big data” promises new degrees of precision in understanding human behavior. Could it also allow drawing a finer line between “choice” and “circumstances”? In a culture in which individual responsibility continues to be celebrated, this raises questions about new opportunities for institutional design with a stronger focus on individual responsibility. But what is it that can be learned from big data? In this paper I argue that we should not expect a “god’s eye view” on choice versus circumstances from big data. “Responsibility” is a social construct that depends on the logic of different social situations, as well as our epistemic access to certain counterfactuals (e.g., whether an agent “could have acted differently”). It is this epistemic dimension that changes with the arrival of big data. But while this might help overcome some epistemic barriers, it might also create new problems, e.g., because of polluted and hence biased data. This is not just a theoretical problem; it is directly connected to the regulation of insurance. The new developments force us to directly confront questions about mutualist versus solidaristic forms of insurance, and more generally about how much weight to ascribe to individual responsibility, given all we know about unequal background circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificially intelligent machines are different in kind from all previous machines and tools. While many are used for relatively benign purposes, the types of artificially intelligent machines that we should care about, the ones that are worth focusing on, are the machines that purport to replace humans entirely and thereby engage in what Brain Cantwell Smith calls “judgment.” As impressive as artificially intelligent machines are, their abilities are still derived from humans and as such lack the sort of normative commitments that humans have. So while artificially intelligent machines possess a great capacity for “reckoning,” to use Smith’s terminology, i.e., a calculative prowess of extraordinary utility and importance, they still lack the kind of considered human judgment that accompanies the ethical commitment and responsible action we humans must ultimately aspire toward. But there is a perfect technological storm brewing. Artificially intelligent machines are analogous to a perfect storm in that such machines involve the convergence of a number of factors that threaten our ability to behave ethically and maintain meaningful human control over the outcomes of processes involving artificial intelligence. I argue that the storm in the context of artificially intelligent machines makes us vulnerable to moral complacency. That is, this perfect technological storm is capable of lulling people into a state in which they abdicate responsibility for decision-making and behaviour precipitated by the use of artificially intelligent machines, a state that I am calling “moral complacency.” I focus on three salient problems that converge to make us especially vulnerable to becoming morally complacent and losing meaningful human control. The first problem is that of transparency/opacity. The second problem is that of overtrust in machines, often referred to as the automation bias. The third problem is that of ascribing responsibility. I examine each of these problems and how together they threaten to render us morally complacent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Die Urologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The planetary defense community should consider the development of a Responsibility to Defend Earth (R2DE) as a foundational normative principle for a future planetary defense security regime. This requires thorough deliberation and consensus-building to definitively answer the question: "What is the value we secure?" This manuscript proposes the Responsibility to Defend Earth (R2DE) as a core principle for planetary defense, aiming to foster international cooperation and policy changes. Despite technical advancements and creation of bodies like IAWN and SMPAG, it highlights the need for consensus on action and means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courts often rely on video evidence, assuming it accurately shows important legal details. Yet, studies suggest that video isn't inherently "objective" and people, including legal professionals, might misinterpret its objectivity due to video quality or context. This study aimed to explore how video speed variations and contextual information affect judgments of responsibility in a video portraying a bus assault. The study employed a 5 × 3 mixed design, with video speed (Very Slow, 0.88x; Slow, 0.96x; Neutral, 1.00x; Fast, 1.04x; Very Fast, 1.12x) as a between-subject variable, contextual information (Hit, Harm, Kill) attributed to the perpetrator's action as a within-subject factor, and dimensions of accountability, predictability, criminal intent, and severity as dependent variables. ANOVA results from a sample of 300 participants (60 per video speed condition) revealed that the highest levels of accountability, criminal intent, and predictability were attributed when the contextual information was "hit" as compared to the "harm" and "kill" actions. Furthermore, the greatest difference in accountability and criminal intent scores for the kill action was between the very fast and very slow conditions. These findings raise significant concerns about the use of video evidence in criminal proceedings, as video speed manipulation and contextual information can have a substantial impact on responsibility judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relationships between stakeholders and businesses have the potential for conflict and cooperation. Such conflicts arise out of real differences in values and interests. This article explores the employment relationship as an emblematic case of business–stakeholder relations in which conflict is inevitable because employers and employees have interests that are at least partially conflicting, even while some degree of collaboration and shared interests underpins the existence of all employment relationships. We build on insights from the philosophy of agonism to develop the concept of agonistic business responsibility, which is a stakeholder management orientation that views conflict and contestation differently from the status quo, which we term antagonistic business irresponsibility. We discuss the broader implications of these ideas for stakeholder relations at the organizational level and the prospect of strengthened institutions at the societal level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the ethical challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in higher education and explores the first responses of universities to these challenges globally. Drawing on five key international documents from the UN, EU, and OECD, the study used content analysis to identify key ethical dimensions related to the use of generative AI in academia, such as accountability, human oversight, transparency, or inclusiveness. Empirical evidence was compiled from 30 leading universities ranked among the top 500 in the Shanghai Ranking list from May to July 2023, covering those institutions that already had publicly available responses to these dimensions in the form of policy documents or guidelines. The paper identifies the central ethical imperative that student assignments must reflect individual knowledge acquired during their education, with human individuals retaining moral and legal responsibility for AI-related wrongdoings. This top-down requirement aligns with a bottom-up approach, allowing instructors flexibility in determining how they utilize generative AI especially large language models in their own courses. Regarding human oversight, the typical response identified by the study involves a blend of preventive measures (e.g., course assessment modifications) and soft, dialogue-based sanctioning procedures. The challenge of transparency induced the good practice of clear communication of AI use in course syllabi in the first university responses examined by this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals whose basic needs are naturally satisfied are much less dependent on their environment and more autonomous. Basic psychological needs (i.e., the general motivators of human actions) are significant predictors of online gaming addiction. Moreover, it has been posited that meaning and responsibility in life are at the center of life from an existential point of view. Therefore, a hypothetical model was tested to examine the relationships between basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness), online gaming addiction, responsibility, and meaning in life. Data were collected from a sample of 546 participants. Mediation analysis was conducted, and the results indicated that basic psychological needs, online gaming addiction, responsibility, and meaning in life had significant negative and positive relationships. The findings indicated that responsibility and meaning in life had a serial mediating effect in the relationship between basic psychological needs and online gaming addiction. The findings also showed that the inverse relationship between online gaming addiction and basic psychological needs was at least partially explained by meaning in life and responsibility. The results of the present study are of great importance and suggest that interventions to satisfy the basic psychological needs of adolescents may help prevent online gaming addiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research focuses on the role that allies can play in improving the experiences of Black and Latinx students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) contexts. Using an experience sampling design, study 1 shows that such students report negative experiences in STEM learning contexts and that bystanders rarely engage in allyship. Study 2 suggests that participants perceive the experiences described by Black and Latinx students in study 1 as negative and somewhat urgent, but do not feel personal responsibility to act. Studies 3 and 4 assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at enhancing personal responsibility for confronting prejudice and engaging in allyship. Study 3 reveals that enhancing a bystander's sense of psychological standing can increase prejudice confrontation, and study 4 extends this phenomenon by showing that fellow bystanders' (not just targets') appeals to other bystanders' psychological standing also evoke action. Overall, this work advances research on allyship in STEM contexts by integrating the Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) model with theories of subtle discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores a potential joint effect between two proactive motives on creative performance. Departing from the assumption of motivation as a relatively stable between-person construct, we also pay attention to the within-person process to examine how daily fluctuations of proactive motives affect daily idea generation, leading to creative performance. Specifically, drawing on job demands–resources theory, we theorize a joint effect of two proactive motives at the within-person level: daily felt responsibility for change (DFRC) and daily willingness to take risks (DWTR). We test our hypotheses by analyzing data collected from 135 employees and their supervisors by using the experience sampling method followed by multiwave field surveys. Daily idea generation is high when the DFRC and DWTR have high congruence, particularly when both motives are high rather than low. In addition, daily idea generation mediates the effect of the DFRC and DWTR congruence on employee creative performance as appraised by supervisors. Moreover, seeking feedback from coworkers strengthens the indirect effect of the DFRC and DWTR congruence on employee creative performance via daily idea generation. This study offers a fine-grained view of motivational mechanisms and employee social behavior that lead to creative performance in the workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Sweden, people living independently and requiring daily living support can access 'housing support', a form of practical, educational, and social support provided by the municipalities. About two-thirds of those receiving this support have neurodevelopmental conditions, primarily autism or ADHD. Many are young adults in the process of adapting to new roles and expectations in different life domains, including education, work, and accommodation. This study aimed to provide a qualitative description of support workers' views on current practice in housing support for young adults (aged 18 to 29) with neurodevelopmental conditions. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 34 housing support workers across 19 Swedish regions. An inductive qualitative content analysis approach was used. The interviews depicted a complex service, subject to organizational aspects (roles, responsibilities, availability, and allocation), the joint effort of key players (young adults, relatives, and support workers), and practical aspects of service provision (finding common ground for the work, and delivery of support). Some elements of the service were poorly designed for the target group. The support workers expressed a need for more knowledge about neurodevelopmental conditions, but also described new insights related to remote delivery of support. The results raise important questions about how housing support should be organized and delivered to strike the right balance between support and autonomy, meet specific needs, and ensure equal services across municipalities. Future research should adopt multiple perspectives and approaches, to help translate best practice and available evidence into a flexible and sustainable service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of constructing the internal Voronoi diagram of a polygonal figure—a polygon with polygonal holes—is considered. A method based on the plane sweep paradigm is proposed. Direct construction of only the internal part of the Voronoi diagram allows us to reduce the amount of computations and increase robustness compared to known solutions. Another factor in reducing the computational complexity is the use of the property of pairwise incidence of linear segments formed by the sides of the polygonal figure. To take these features into account, it is proposed to build a data structure called sweep linestatus in the form of an ordered set of sites' areas of responsibility. This structure is implemented as a combination of a balanced tree and a bidirectional list. Computational experiments illustrate the numerical reliability and efficiency of the proposed method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A wealth of literature and best practices on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) document how it can be implemented in projects. However, each project is too specific to simply replicate existing patterns. Especially in early projects with a high degree of uncertainty, where indicators and measures cannot be applied, the so-called provenance assessment as a methodological change of perspective makes it possible to assess the procedural quality of research by means of narratives. A clear picture of the challenges for European bio-economy projects is sought by mapping the broader debate on "RRI in practice" in the context of biotechnology. The SUSPHIRE project is used as a case study to show how project-specific narratives integrate and signify RRI. By unpacking various concepts of "responsibility" that are already present in the project narrative at an early stage, I will show how this assessment differs significantly from other attempts to "do RRI". It is precisely in the absence of other criteria that the assessment of provenance can bring to the fore the specific form(s) of responsibility inherent in the development of projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here is a crucial principle for debates about moral luck, responsibility, and free will: a subject is blameworthy for an act only if, in acting, she did what she ought not to have done. That is, 'blameworthiness' implies 'ought not' (BION). There are some good reasons to accept BION, but whether we accept it mainly depends on complex questions about the objectivity of ought and the subjectivity of blameworthiness. This paper offers an exploratory defence of BION: it gives three prima facie reasons to accept it, provides a plausible interpretation of it, and shows how holding out against objections can yield fruitful lessons. Five objections to BION are considered: the objection from conscience, from reasons, from suberogation, from objectivity, and from excuses. Their main problem is to either over-subjectify blameworthiness or to over-objectify obligations. To accept BION, we must occupy a desirable middle ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about research’s environmental impacts have been articulated in the research arena, but questions remain about what types of role responsibilities are appropriate to place on researchers, if any. The research question of this paper is: what are the views of UK health researchers who use data-intensive methods on their responsibilities to consider the environmental impacts of their research? Twenty-six interviews were conducted with UK health researchers using data-intensive methods. Participants expressed a desire to take responsibility for the environmental impacts of their research, however, they were unable to consolidate this because there were often obstacles that prevented them from taking such role responsibilities. They suggested strategies to address this, predominantly related to the need for regulation to monitor their own behaviour. This paper discusses the implications of adopting such a regulatory approach as a mechanism to promote researchers’ role responsibilities using a neo-liberal critique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been recognised as a challenge to responsibility. Much of this discourse has been framed around robots, such as autonomous weapons or self-driving cars, where we arguably lack control over a machine’s behaviour and therefore struggle to identify an agent that can be held accountable. However, most of today’s AI is based on machine-learning technology that does not act on its own, but rather serves as a decision-support tool, automatically analysing data to help human agents make better decisions. I argue that decision-support tools pose a challenge to responsibility that goes beyond the familiar problem of finding someone to blame or punish for the behaviour of agent-like systems. Namely, they pose a problem for what we might call “decision ownership”: they make it difficult to identify human agents to whom we can attribute value-judgements that are reflected in decisions. Drawing on recent philosophical literature on responsibility and its various facets, I argue that this is primarily a problem of attributability rather than of accountability. This particular responsibility problem comes in different forms and degrees, most obviously when an AI provides direct recommendations for actions, but also, less obviously, when it provides mere descriptive information on the basis of which a decision is made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of its practical advantages, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used for decision-making in numerous sectors. This paper demonstrates that the integral characteristics of ML, such as semi-autonomy, complexity, and non-deterministic modeling have important ethical implications. In particular, these characteristics lead to a lack of insight and lack of comprehensibility, and ultimately to the loss of human control over decision-making. Errors, which are bound to occur in any decision-making process, may lead to great harm and human rights violations. It is important to have a principled way of assigning responsibility for such errors. The integral characteristics of ML, however, pose serious difficulties in defining responsibility and regulating ML decision-making. First, we elaborate on these characteristics and their epistemic and ethical implications. We then analyze possible general strategies for resolving the assignment of moral responsibility and show that, due to the specific way in which ML functions, each potential solution is problematic, whether we assign responsibility to humans, machines, or using hybrid models. Then, we shift focus on an alternative approach that bypasses moral responsibility and attempts to define legal liability independently through solutions such as informed consent and the no-fault compensation system. Both of these solutions prove unsatisfactory because they leave too much room for potential abuses of ML decision-making. We conclude that both ethical and legal solutions are fraught with serious difficulties. These difficulties prompt us to re-weigh the costs and benefits of using ML for high-stake decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence and evolution of engineering biology, and its potential to address multiple global challenges is associated with the rise of biofoundries. These innovation intermediaries are facilities that employ advanced automation and computational analytics to accelerate engineering biology applications. Yet, for biofoundries to fully achieve their promise of generating applications that address grand societal challenges, they need to meet three key challenges: translation of research technology and its commercialization, attention to sustainability, and responsible innovation. Using web content analysis and interviews, this paper explores the functions and capabilities undertaken by existing public biofoundries, the extent to which they address these three challenges, and opportunities and models for enhancement. We also probe the roles undertaken by three other contrasting types of innovation intermediaries to identify practices and opportunities for integration and partnering with public biofoundries. We find that public biofoundries exhibit relatively strong capabilities for research translation, whereas efforts toward sustainability and responsibility are generally less prominent. For biofoundry enhancement, we propose an organisational model based on external partnering where public biofoundries are positioned as intermediaries within regional innovation systems. The framework put forward is reproducible and could be used in other contexts for assessing innovation intermediary organisational functions and capabilities toward meeting societal challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the retail landscape has undergone profound and enduring changes, necessitating a comprehensive examination of its implications for both consumers and retailers. This study provides a systematic analysis of emergent shifts in consumer behavior and the resulting changes in consumer value creation. The authors develop a conceptual framework encompassing five key dimensions that likely will reshape value creation in post-pandemic retailing: hyperfunctional shopping, holistic health, hybrid connectedness, conscious hedonism, and responsible consumption. The authors propose that consumers will prefer retailers that accomplish creating value based on these dimensions through next-level customer experiences rooted in inspiration and social interaction, novel technologies, and innovations in store concepts, services, or retail operations. Critical to successfully delivering next-level customer experiences in this new retail landscape is retailers' engagement in collaborations—both within the industry and with external partners. Accounting for these developments, this study offers implications for retailing practice and provides a roadmap for future retailing research in five key areas pertaining to the management of responsible, health-related, and digital customer experiences, the management of collaborations for creating next-level customer experiences, and the effective monetization of the evolving dimensions of value creation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-employed workers face numerous demands, including high uncertainty, workload, and personal responsibility for business success, that have the potential to jeopardize their well-being. This study integrates aspects of the conservation of resources (COR) theory, the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the literature on intention–behavior gaps to offer insights into how self-employed workers can influence their well-being. We propose that their intention to adopt self-care practices acts as a motivational element that links assumptions about the well-being-protecting and -enhancing effects of self-care practices to the enactment of such practices. Moreover, we investigate the role of entrepreneurial stressors as potential hindering factors in the translation of self-care practice intentions into actual behavior. In a sample of 290 self-employed workers and employing a two-wave study design with a one-month time lag, we found that frequently practicing self-care was positively associated with workers' vitality, negatively associated with mental health complaints, and unrelated to somatic health complaints. Among the various types of self-care, physical exercise was most consistently associated with well-being outcomes. Self-care intentions significantly predicted the engagement in self-care practices. Entrepreneurial stressors did not act as barriers to the adoption of self-care practices. By underscoring the utility of self-care practices for self-employed workers' well-being and the key role of self-care practice intentions, this study responds to the call for a research focus shift towards identifying practices that protect well-being among self-employed workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a host of ethical, legal, social, and political challenges involving various stakeholders. These challenges prompt various studies proposing frameworks and guidelines to tackle these issues, emphasizing distinct phases of AI development, deployment, and oversight. As a result, the notion of responsible AI has become widespread, incorporating ethical principles such as transparency, fairness, responsibility, and privacy. This paper explores the existing literature on AI use in healthcare to examine how it addresses, defines, and discusses the concept of responsibility. We conducted a scoping review of literature related to AI responsibility in healthcare, searching databases and reference lists between January 2017 and January 2022 for terms related to "responsibility" and "AI in healthcare", and their derivatives. Following screening, 136 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) the variety of terminology used to describe and address responsibility; (2) principles and concepts associated with responsibility; (3) stakeholders' responsibilities in AI clinical development, use, and deployment; and (4) recommendations for addressing responsibility concerns. The results show the lack of a clear definition of AI responsibility in healthcare and highlight the importance of ensuring responsible development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Further research is necessary to clarify this notion to contribute to developing frameworks regarding the type of responsibility (ethical/moral/professional, legal, and causal) of various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Families must restructure and renegotiate rules, roles, and boundaries when a member is incarcerated. Nonincarcerated partners may act as gatekeepers and primary caretakers, however, a strong coparenting alliance can facilitate better family outcomes such as greater relationship satisfaction and cohesion. Structural family therapy (SFT) can help families conceptualize a healthy structure when experiencing the incarceration of a member. In this study, an actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) was estimated using structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze 864 heterosexual romantic couples where the man was incarcerated, using data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering (MFS-IP). We examined the relationship between 4-point scales measuring the perceived reliability of parenting responsibilities and internally consistent 8-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) scores that capture relationship satisfaction and cohesion. Both actor and partner effects are significant for each dyad member; being able to rely on one's partner to follow through with their parenting responsibilities and having a partner who can rely on them are important predictors of greater relationship satisfaction and cohesion. Results emphasize the need for therapeutic services to strengthen romantic and coparenting relationships where one partner is incarcerated. Highlights: When a parent is incarcerated, families are tasked with restructuring. SFT allows for the theoretical understanding of structure, rules, and boundaries for families experiencing incarceration. We examined the relationship between the perceived reliability of parenting responsibilities and dyadic adjustment. Being able to rely on one's partner concerning parenting responsibilities predicts greater relationship satisfaction and cohesion and having a partner who can rely on the respondent predicts greater relationship satisfaction and cohesion. Results showcase the need for therapeutic services to strengthen incarcerated romantic and coparenting relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stephanie Collins' book "Organizations as Wrongdoers: From Ontology to Morality" explores the metaphysical and moral implications of collective agency and group responsibility. Collins argues that organizations are material objects composed of both material and non-material parts, with members being the material parts. She discusses the blameworthiness of organizations from volitionist, attributivist, and aretaic perspectives, highlighting the moral significance of organizational attitudes and character. Collins also examines how organizational wrongdoing implicates members and considers the liability of members in historical or diffuse wrongdoings. Overall, the book offers valuable insights into the understanding of organizations and their ethical implications. [Extracted from the article]

In June 2021, FDA released a Draft Guidance on Sponsor Responsibilities for IND Safety Reporting and cited components of a recommended Safety Surveillance Plan (SSP). To meet the expectations of the 2021 FDA guidance, sponsors should document their plan for aggregate safety assessment. The Drug Information Association-American Statistical Association Interdisciplinary Safety Evaluation scientific working group has proposed an Aggregate Safety Assessment Plan (ASAP) that addresses this recommendation. The 2021 FDA guidance also discusses potential strategies for unblinded review of safety data from ongoing studies by an independent Assessment Entity, which could occur via planned periodic evaluations or "triggered" reviews based on blinded data assessments. The Assessment Entity reviewing unblinded data makes recommendations as to whether the threshold has been met for submission of an aggregate IND safety report. In this paper, we discuss how the ASAP supports IND aggregate safety reporting decisions, including elements to be included in a proposed SSP appendix to the ASAP. In addition, the authors advocate for the benefits of developing a charter (or specific section of the Data Monitoring Committee charter, if applicable) that describes the responsibilities and conduct of the Assessment Entity. With these components in place, study sponsors will meet the objective of having clearly defined processes for the monitoring of clinical trial safety data in aggregate and making IND safety reporting decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do people attribute responsibility when an outcome is not caused by an individual but results from a decision chain involving several people? We study this question in an experiment, in which five voters sequentially decide on how to distribute money between them and five recipients. The recipients can reward or punish each voter, which we use as measures of responsibility attribution. In the aggregate, we find that responsibility is attributed mostly according to the voters' choices and the pivotality of the decision, but not for being the initial voter. On the individual level, we find substantial heterogeneity with three overall patterns: Little to no responsibility attribution, pivotality-driven, and focus on choices. These patterns are similar when praising voters for good outcomes and blaming voters for bad outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The act of criminalising conduct has been understood by many theorists as a form of communication. This paper proposes a model, based on speech-act theory, for understanding how that act of communication works. In particular, it focuses on analysing how and where wrongfulness can appear in this speech-act, if one were to argue, as many theorists do, that part of what is being communicated through criminalisation is the wrongfulness of the target conduct. I argue that the act of criminalisation is best understood as an indirect speech-act, which both asserts and declares normative facts, the utterance of which makes it the case that a conduct is now criminalised. Within this speech-act, wrongfulness can appear as an implicit assertion of the wrongness of the conduct, which has to be inferred by hearers from the context of utterance. The paper then briefly discusses the upshots of this model, mainly that it allows a clearer picture of how criminalisation conveys meanings, as well as leaving open the question as to whether it makes sense to think that the wrongfulness being conveyed is specifically of a moral kind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I address the theory of excuse, or more precisely, exculpatory excuse, and the question of what it is that justifies the category of excuse. I address different potential grounds for the law of excuse, which are often run together in ways that confound rather than clarify, focusing on the role of blamelessness and unfairness of expectations in the theory of excuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tourette’s Syndrome can involve disruptive “ticcing” behavior. Past work suggests that people sometimes blame those making tics for such disruptions. In the current work, we examined how blame perceptions vary depending on the person’s obligation and capacity to refrain from ticcing. Across two studies, we manipulated whether a person ticced in a formal versus informal social situation (obligation), after a weak versus strong urge to tic (capacity). We assessed perceptions of blame, free will, and moral character. Blame increased with increasing obligation and capacity, and perceptions of free will primarily increased with increasing capacity, with perceived obligation playing a smaller role. Moral character ratings were largely unaffected by the manipulations, but people rated the person higher in moral character when their perceived obligation and capacity were low. Generally, women, younger people, and people who knew someone with Tourette’s rated the person who ticced more positively. Overall, these results suggest that whereas blame is sensitive to a person’s obligation and capacity, these perceptions do not map cleanly onto moral character perceptions, in part perhaps due to reduced free will perceptions. Efforts to normalize tics may reduce the perceived obligation to refrain, thereby avoiding both the pitfalls of blaming people with Tourette’s or viewing them as lower in free will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The possible future use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and the challenges associated with assigning moral responsibility leads to several debates. Some authors argue that the highly autonomous capability of such systems may lead to a so-called responsibility gap in situations where LAWS cause serious violations of international humanitarian law. One proposed solution is the doctrine of command responsibility. Despite the doctrine's original development to govern human interactions on the battlefield, it is worth considering whether the doctrine of command responsibility could provide a solution by applying the notion analogously to LAWS. A fundamental condition underpinning the doctrine's application is the control requirement, stipulating that a superior must exert some degree of control over subordinates. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of this control condition and assess whether it leads to the impossibility of applying the doctrine of command responsibility to LAWS. To this end, the first section briefly introduces the topic of LAWS and responsibility gaps. The subsequent section provides a concise overview of the doctrine itself and the conditions typically necessitated for its application. In the third section, a comprehensive scrutiny of the control requirement is undertaken through examination of key case law, examining how the concept has been interpreted. Finally, the fourth section delves into the evaluation of commanders' potential to exert effective control over their (non-human) subordinates. Based on this, the feasibility of considering command responsibility as a viable solution is assessed, aiming to determine whether its application should be prima facie excluded or warrants further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study empirically tests a sequential mediation model that links ethical leadership with employees' unethical behaviour. The corruption index for countries is used as the moderator, because it represents both the instrumental ethical climate and the employee displacement of responsibility embedded in society's ethical standards. A total of 175 participants comprising 41 teams (134 dyads) across 13 countries participated in a dyadic two-wave survey. The findings show that ethical leadership has an indirect influence on the avoidance of unethical behaviour by reducing the instrumental ethical climate and by negating the displacement of individuals' responsibility. In addition, the results also show that this process is not sensitive to the countries' corruption levels. Such findings suggest that organizations are less prone to adjust their ethical standards to the environment than is usually expected. Accordingly, ethical leaders of MNCs may be instrumental in counteracting any corruptive pressure in the social environment, and likewise, non-ethical leaders may be a contributing factor to fostering corrupt organizations in a society that otherwise values ethical principles in business. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incivility in online commenting sections can create a hostile environment and result in the silencing of vulnerable voices. Accordingly, content websites and social media platforms have an ethical responsibility—one that aligns with their strategic interests—to minimize users' exposure to uncivil content. To this end, platforms invest great effort and budget in automatic and manual filtering mechanisms. Yet, these efforts create a competing ethical quandary, as they often come at the expense of free expression, particularly in cases where comments do not explicitly infringe on stated guidelines but might nevertheless be interpreted as offensive. In this paper, we examine an alternative moderation approach, based on comment reordering as opposed to deletion of uncivil comments. Specifically, we show that exposure to uncivil (vs. civil) comments located in the head or at the bottom of a list of comments increases subsequent commenters' likelihood of posting uncivil comments themselves. Exposure to uncivil comments in the middle of a list, however, does not significantly enhance commenters' likelihood of commenting uncivilly. These results offer new theoretical insight into how incivility is transferred between users in online environments. Our results also suggest a straightforward technological solution for mitigating online incivility, which is more ethical and practical than current industry standards. This involves placing civil comments at the beginning and end of the comment thread, with uncivil comments located in the middle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic genomics now enables law enforcement agencies to undertake rapid and detailed analysis of suspect samples using a technique known as massively parallel sequencing (MPS), including information such as physical traits, biological ancestry, and medical conditions. This article discusses the implications of MPS and provides ethical analysis, drawing on the concept of joint rights applicable to genomic data, and the concept of collective moral responsibility (understood as joint moral responsibility) that are applicable to law enforcement investigations that utilize genomic data. The widespread and unconstrained use of this technology without appropriate legal protections of individual moral rights and associated accountability mechanisms, could potentially not only involve violations of individual moral rights but also lead to an unacceptable shift in the balance of power between governments and the citizenry. We argue that in light of the rights of victims and the security benefits for society, there is a collective moral responsibility for individuals to submit their DNA to law enforcement and for MPS to be used where other, less invasive techniques are not effective. However, this application should be limited by legislation, including that any data obtained should be directly relevant to the investigation and should be destroyed at the conclusion of the investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a justificatory rationale for recommending the inclusion of imagined future use cases in neurotechnology development processes, specifically for legal and policy ends. Including detailed imaginative engagement with future applications of neurotechnology can serve to connect ethical, legal, and policy issues potentially arising from the translation of brain stimulation research to the public consumer domain. Futurist scholars have for some time recommended approaches that merge creative arts with scientific development in order to theorise possible futures toward which current trends in technology development might be steered. Taking a creative, imaginative approach like this in the neurotechnology context can help move development processes beyond considerations of device functioning, safety, and compliance with existing regulation, and into an active engagement with potential future dynamics brought about by the emergence of the neurotechnology itself. Imagined scenarios can engage with potential consumer uses of devices that might come to challenge legal or policy contexts. An anticipatory, creative approach can imagine what such uses might consist in, and what they might imply. Justifying this approach also prompts a co-responsibility perspective for policymaking in technology contexts. Overall, this furnishes a mode of neurotechnology’s emergence that can avoid crises of confidence in terms of ethico-legal issues, and promote policy responses balanced between knowledge, values, protected innovation potential, and regulatory safeguards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the relationship between institutional responsibility and personal responsibility during a pandemic, specifically focusing on the UK's response to COVID-19. It emphasizes the importance of both levels of responsibility and how they interact. The article argues that institutions have a duty to prepare for pandemics, learn from mistakes, and communicate effectively, while individuals should follow reasonable guidance and take responsible actions. It acknowledges the challenges faced by governments in decision-making and highlights the need for transparency and accountability. The article concludes that institutional responsibility should take precedence over personal responsibility, and governments should take responsibility for their failures and empower their citizens to act responsibly. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: To explore the occurrence of work adjustments for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) across types of occupations (managerial, office, and manual workers). Methods: All working-aged (20–50 years) residents in Sweden diagnosed with MS were invited to participate in a web-based survey in 2021. Responses were linked to individual-level nationwide registers. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare sociodemographic and clinical variables across occupations as well as other responses. The odds ratio of having any adjustment at work was determined using multinomial logistic regression. Results: From all 4412 respondents (52% response rate), 3313 employees were included. The majority were women (72%) and had low (24.2%) or mild disease severity (44.7%). Nevertheless, different work adjustments across occupations were observed. Compared to the other occupations, office workers reported more invisible symptoms, more work adjustments and considered adapted schedules as the most important adjustment. On the contrary, more managers reported having no limiting symptoms and consequently, disclosed their diagnosis less often. They also reported having fewer work adjustments and more opportunities to modify their work than office and manual workers. Manual workers had a higher likelihood to report needing more support at work than office workers and managers. Further, a higher likelihood of having work adjustments was associated with progressive MS, higher MS severity, and invisible symptoms. Conclusion: A more severe clinical profile of MS was associated with having work adjustments. The physical demands and responsibilities of an occupation play an important role when requesting and getting work adjustments amongst employees with MS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing understanding of how and why the climate is changing has led to mounting calls on climate scientists to take on more responsibility in the context of climate science. While an increasing responsibilisation takes place in the academic literature, asking scientists to “do more”, there is limited engagement with the responsibilities that scientists already assume in practice. Drawing on novel empirical insights from 77 semi-structured interviews with participants of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I take the increasing ‘peer-to-peer responsibilisation’ as a point of departure to contextualise such calls, asking what scientists themselves already feel and assume responsibility for at both the personal and professional level. I find that climate experts participating in the IPCC not only assume increasing responsibility across different stages of the IPCC process but also beyond. As my data analysis demonstrates, IPCC participants increasingly feel and take on responsibility not only for producing and assessing climate science but also for communicating and/or enacting it (PACE). The contribution of the article is threefold. Firstly, it makes sense of the mounting peer-to-peer responsibilisation by surfacing and contextualising how, why and with what consequences particular climate knowledge holders already assume responsibility for climate science at four key moments (PACE). Secondly, conceiving of the IPCC as a community of practice, the article provides novel insights into the work of IPCC participants and their individual experiences with the institution and its processes. Thirdly, the article adds evidence to a growing body of literature on practices of responsibility and climate emotions by focussing on participants' individual affective experiences. As the 7th Assessment Cycle gathers pace, I propose some measures the IPCC may undertake to support participants in assuming their responsibilities in the context of climate science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although previous research has examined the effectiveness of various levels of punitive reactions to misconduct, researchers have given leader leniency relatively inadequate attention. Prior studies consistently suggest the beneficial effects of reacting less punitively toward misconduct. The current research challenges this notion by delineating a mixed effect of leader leniency on subordinate psychological and behavioral reactions. Building on social exchange theory (i.e., reciprocity norm and rank equilibration norm) and motive attribution literature, the authors argue that when subordinates hold high levels of instrumental motive attribution, leader leniency relates positively to subordinate psychological entitlement, which in turn leads to workplace deviance. In contrast, when subordinates develop high levels of value-expressive motive attribution, leader leniency is positively associated with their felt obligation toward leaders, which positively influences their subsequent organizational citizenship behavior. The results of a field study, a scenario experiment, and a recall experiment conducted to test these hypotheses confirm the double-edged effects of leader leniency. These findings have important implications for theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With regard to current debates on the ethical implementation of AI, especially two demands are linked: the call for explainability and for ultimate human responsibility. In the medical field, both are condensed into the role of one person: It is the physician to whom AI output should be explainable and who should thus bear ultimate responsibility for diagnostic or treatment decisions that are based on such AI output. In this article, we argue that a black box AI indeed creates a rationally irresolvable epistemic situation for the physician involved. Specifically, strange errors that are occasionally made by AI sometimes detach its output from human reasoning. Within this article it is further argued that such an epistemic situation is problematic in the context of ultimate human responsibility. Since said strange errors limit the promises of explainability and the concept of explainability frequently appears irrelevant or insignificant when applied to a diverse set of medical applications, we deem it worthwhile to reconsider the call for ultimate human responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently popular theories of epistemic responsibility rest on the (perhaps implicit) assumption that justification and excuse exhaust the relevant normative categories. One gets the sense that, once we've laid down the conditions for justified belief, and once we've laid down the conditions of excusably unjustified belief, the work is done; all that's left is to clock out. Against this backdrop, one is naturally led to think that if an agent's doxastic state—her various beliefs and belief-like attitudes, or a subset thereof—fails to be justified, it is thereby unjustified, perhaps excusably so. The aim of this paper is to argue that that natural thought is mistaken; some agents are epistemically incompetent, and in virtue of their incompetence, their doxastic states are neither justified nor unjustified (even excusably). Instead, the doxastic states of such agents are exempt from epistemic evaluation altogether. I argue that what underlies this point about exemptions is that epistemic competences or abilities play an important and typically overlooked role in epistemology, especially in theories of epistemic responsibility. Here, I am interested in uncovering that role and explaining what it is, and also in explaining how one could accommodate it within various epistemological frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Berliner Journal für Soziologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When asked to estimate how much their state or nation has contributed to history, people typically provide unreasonably large estimates, claiming that their group has contributed much more to history than nongroup members would estimate, demonstrating collective overclaiming. Why does such overclaiming occur? In the current study we examined factors that might predict collective overclaiming. Participants from 12 U.S. states estimated how much their home state contributed to U.S. history, completed measures of collective narcissism and numeracy, and rated the importance of 60 specific historical events. There was a positive relationship between collective overclaiming and collective narcissism, a negative relationship between collective overclaiming and numeracy, and a positive relationship between collective overclaiming and the importance ratings of the specific events. Together, these results indicate that overclaiming is partially and positively related to collective narcissism and negatively related to people's ability to work with numbers. We conclude that collective overclaiming is likely determined by several factors, including the availability heuristic and ego protection mechanisms, in addition to collective narcissism and relative innumeracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 'Moral Luck,' Bernard Williams famously argued that "there is a particularly important species of regret, which I shall call 'agent-regret,' which a person can feel only towards his past actions." Much subsequent commentary has focused on Williams's claim that agent-regret is not necessarily restricted to voluntary actions, and questioned whether such an attitude could be rationally justified. This focus, however, obscures a more fundamental set of questions raised by Williams's discussion: what is the role in our moral psychology of evaluative attitudes that relate essentially to past exercises of our agency—occurrences which, by their very nature, cannot be repeated? On a standard conception, regret is directed principally towards actions that resulted from suboptimal deliberation. On this view, the main point of regret is to guide us away from similar poor decisions in the future. But Williams's key insight in 'Moral Luck,' I argue, is that there is a mode of evaluation of one's past actions and decisions that does not track considerations one could and should have been responsive to at the time, and is for this reason essentially retrospective. From this perspective, the full significance of regret cannot be captured in terms of a disposition to deliberate better in the future. Rather, the particular kind of painful of consciousness of the past embodied in regret amounts to a reflective, and essentially backward-looking, insight into the contingency and finitude of our own agency—that I am a particular person leading a particular life, and that the possibility of leading a different life is now gone forever. I end by making some speculative comments about the intractable question whether it is ultimately good or desirable to be disposed to regret one's past mistakes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the relationship between pre-existing beliefs regarding the functions of self-harm and helping/discriminatory responses in an undergraduate sample (N = 237). Helping and discriminatory responses to self-harm were compared with an existing psychophysical measure that generated thresholds for helping intentions based on the frequency of self-harm behaviors (scratches) presented (Turner et al. in Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 2021). Participants viewed one of three vignettes depicting self-harm as either hidden or displayed with a third control condition where no information about the self-harm was provided (control). The vignettes aimed to infer either an interpersonal (displayed) or intrapersonal (hidden) motivation (vs the control). Participants completed questionnaires assessing responses towards the vignette, help-seeking attitudes, beliefs about the functions of self-harm, and a computer-based task assessing helping-intentions for self-harm. Results indicated that stronger endorsement of self-harm having interpersonal functions were related to more discriminatory responses. Conversely, endorsement of intrapersonal functions were related to less discriminatory responses. Participants' responses to self-harm were consistent with the attribution model of stigma (Corrigan et al. in Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(2), 162–179, 2003), and components of a parallel 'danger-appraisal' hypothesis wherein discriminatory responses related to perceptions of dangerousness are mediated by fear, rather than personal responsibility beliefs. Differences in thresholds and helping/discriminatory responses between vignette conditions were not significant. Participants' thresholds were not significantly correlated with other measures of help-seeking attitudes or helping/discriminatory responses. These results suggest that beliefs regarding the functions of self-harm account for significant variance in helping and discriminatory responses to self-harm. Implications for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]