7 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
John Monterosso [6]John R. Monterosso [1]
  1. John Monterosso & Shan Luo (2013). Willpower is Not Synonymous with “Executive Function”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (6):700-701.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. George Ainslie & John Monterosso (2005). Why Not Emotions as Motivated Behaviors? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):194-195.
    Lewis's dynamic systems approach is a refreshing change from the reflexology of most neuroscience, but it could go a step further: It could include the expected rewardingness of an emotion in the recursive feedback loop that determines whether the emotion will occur. Two possible objections to such a model are discussed: that emotions are not deliberate, and that negative emotions should lose out as instrumental choices.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. John Monterosso, Edward B. Royzman & Barry Schwartz (2005). Explaining Away Responsibility: Effects of Scientific Explanation on Perceived Culpability. Ethics and Behavior 15 (2):139 – 158.
    College students and suburban residents completed questionnaires designed to examine the tendency of scientific explanations of undesirable behaviors to mitigate perceived culpability. In vignettes relating behaviors to an explanatory antecedent, we manipulated the uniformity of the behavior given the antecedent, the responsiveness of the behavior to deterrence, and the explanatory antecedent-type offered- physiological (e.g., a chemical imbalance) or experiential (e.g., abusive parents). Physiological explanations had a greater tendency to exonerate actors than did experiential explanations. The effects of uniformity and deterrence (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. John Sabini & John Monterosso (2005). Judgments of the Fairness of Using Performance Enhancing Drugs. Ethics and Behavior 15 (1):81 – 94.
    Undergraduates (total N = 185) were asked about performance-affecting drugs. Some drugs supposedly affected athletic performance, others memory, and others attention. Some improved performance for anyone who took them, others for the top 10% of performers, others for the bottom 10%, and finally, yet other drugs worked only on the bottom 10% who also showed physical abnormalities. Participants were asked about the fairness of allowing the drug to be used, about banning it, and about whether predictions of future performance based (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. John Monterosso & George Ainslie (2003). Game Theory Need Not Abandon Individual Maximization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):171-171.
    Colman proposes that the domain of interpersonal choice requires an alternative and nonindividualistic conception of rationality. However, the anomalies he catalogues can be accounted for with less radical departures from orthodox rational choice theory. In particular, we emphasize the need for descriptive and prescriptive rationality to incorporate recursive interplay between one's own choices and one's expectation regarding others' choices.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Carrie E. Bearden & John R. Monterosso (2002). Catatonia Isn't Ready for a Unified Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):579-580.
    Northoff's target article presents a unifying theory of the pathophysiology of catatonia, as compared to Parkinson's disease. We address two arguments in particular that do not appear justified by available evidence: (1) The physiological basis of catatonia is the breakdown of right hemisphere prefrontal-parietal cortical connectivity, and (2) Dysfunction in this system results in specific deficits in termination of action.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. George Ainslie & John Monterosso (2001). Hyperbolic Discounting Lets Empathy Be a Motivated Process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (1):20-21.
    The Perception-Action Model (PAM) is a cogent theory of how organisms get information about others' experiences. However, such a stimulus-driven mechanism does not handle well the complex choices that humans face about how to respond to this information. Hyperbolic reward discounting permits a reward-driven mechanism for both how aversive empathic experiences can compete for attention and how pleasurable empathic experiences are constrained.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation