Showing 1 - 2 of 2 Items

Date: 2017-08-01

Creator: Kristi A. Olson

Access: Open access

According to the trilemma claim, we cannot have all three of equality, Pareto, and freedom of occupational choice. In response to the trilemma, John Rawls famously sacrificed equality by introducing incentives. In contrast, GA Cohen and others argued that we can, in fact, have all three provided that individuals are properly motivated by an egalitarian ethos. The incentives debate, then, concerns the plausibility of the ethos solution versus the plausibility of the incentives solution. Considerable ink has been spilled on both sides of the debate. Yet, in this essay, I argue that we cannot have this debate until we clarify the terms. Once we clarify the terms, however, we might discover that there is no debate to be had. This is because, depending on how equality, Pareto, and freedom of occupational choice are interpreted, there might not be a trilemma in the first place. Specifically, I use a small but crucial distinction in how equality, the egalitarian ethos, and Pareto are assessed – what I call the internal/external distinction – to disentangle the various paths each solution – the ethos or incentives – could take. I conclude that both solutions have gained illicit plausibility by virtue of not keeping the distinction straight.

Date: 2023-01-01

Creator: Karis Treadwell

Access: Open access

This study proposes a novel mediational model to investigate the relationship between sociocultural orientations and mental illness stigma by exploring empathy and controllability attributions as mediators. Past literature suggests that understanding these variables may contain important implications for guiding stigma-reducing efforts. Questionnaires assessing sociocultural orientations, empathy, blaming attributions, and general mental illness stigma were administered to 109 students at a small liberal-arts college in the northeast United States. The sample consisted of 80 female-identifying participants, 28 male-identifying participants, and 1 non-binary participant. Questionnaires administered included the Individualism and Collectivism scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (Reniers et al., 2011), a modified version of the Attribution Questionnaire (Corrigan et al., 2003), and Day’s Mental Illness Stigma Scale (Day et al., 2007). Analysis showed that vertical sociocultural orientations were associated with more blameful attributions and heightened stigma. Horizontal collectivism was associated with increased empathy and less blameful attributions, but empathy did not mediate this relationship. Controllability attributions, but not empathy, partially mediated the relationships between both vertical orientations and stigma. These findings demonstrate the importance of sociocultural orientations, particularly the equality preference dimension, as predictors of mental illness stigma. Efforts to counter societal stigma should consider the role of sociocultural orientations and their interaction with empathy and blaming tendencies.