Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Genre: Masters Thesis
- Creators: Arizona State University
- Status: Published
Description
Recommendations made by expert groups are pervasive throughout various life domains. Yet not all recommendations--or expert groups--are equally persuasive. This research aims to identify factors that influence the persuasiveness of recommendations. More specifically, this study examined the effects of decisional cohesion (the amount of agreement among the experts in support of the recommendation), framing (whether the message is framed as a loss or gain), and the domain of the recommendation (health vs. financial) on the persuasiveness of the recommendation. The participants consisted of 1,981 undergraduates from Arizona State University. The participants read a vignette including information about the expert group making a recommendation--which varied the amount of expert agreement for the recommendation--and the recommendation, which was framed as either a gain or loss. Participants then responded to questions about the persuasiveness of the recommendation. In this study, there was a linear main effect of decisional cohesion such that the greater the decisional cohesion of the expert group the more persuasive their recommendation. In addition, there was a main effect of domain such that the health recommendation was more persuasive than the financial recommendation. Contrary to predictions, there was no observed interaction between the amount of decisional cohesion and the framing of the recommendation nor was there a main effect of framing. Further analyses show support for a mediation effect indicating that high levels of decisional cohesion increased the perceived entitativity of the expert group--the degree to which the group was perceived as a unified, cohesive group¬--which increased the recommendation's persuasiveness. An implication of this research is that policy makers could increase the persuasiveness of their recommendations by promoting recommendations that are unanimously supported by their experts or at least show higher levels of decisional cohesion.
ContributorsVotruba, Ashley M (Author) / Kwan, Virginia S.Y. (Thesis advisor) / Saks, Michael J. (Committee member) / Demaine, Linda (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Recently, it was demonstrated that startle-evoked-movements (SEMs) are present during individuated finger movements (index finger abduction), but only following intense training. This demonstrates that changes in motor planning, which occur through training (motor learning - a characteristic which can provide researchers and clinicians with information about overall rehabilitative effectiveness), can be analyzed with SEM. The objective here was to determine if SEM is a sensitive enough tool for differentiating expertise (task solidification) in a common everyday task (typing). If proven to be true, SEM may then be useful during rehabilitation for time-stamping when task-specific expertise has occurred, and possibly even when the sufficient dosage of motor training (although not tested here) has been delivered following impairment. It was hypothesized that SEM would be present for all fingers of an expert population, but no fingers of a non-expert population. A total of 9 expert (75.2 ± 9.8 WPM) and 8 non-expert typists, (41.6 ± 8.2 WPM) with right handed dominance and with no previous neurological or current upper extremity impairment were evaluated. SEM was robustly present (all p < 0.05) in all fingers of the experts (except the middle) and absent in all fingers of non-experts except the little (although less robust). Taken together, these results indicate that SEM is a measurable behavioral indicator of motor learning and that it is sensitive to task expertise, opening it for potential clinical utility.
ContributorsBartels, Brandon Michael (Author) / Honeycutt, Claire F (Thesis advisor) / Schaefer, Sydney (Committee member) / Santello, Marco (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This paper examines the strength of a recent argument made against democracy. The notion of epistocracy, a system of government where the wise or the knowers rule, has garnered some attention of late. These theories of epistocracy have traditionally struggled with questions of political legitimacy and authority. In Against Democracy, Jason Brennan articulates an alternative theory for epistocracy which may prove more promising. Brennan argues instead that democracy faces objections of political legitimacy which epistocracy avoids because democracy either harms or violates rights as a result of granting political power to the incompetent. This negative argument against democracy hopes to make epistocracy the preferable option in comparison. I will argue, however, that if we take this comparative approach then we ought to prefer democracy---or, rather, democratic reform---over epistocracy as the best solution in addressing the concerns which Brennan raises. It is not enough to merely point to flaws in democracy. For this argument to be successful, it must also be shown that epistocracy avoids those flaws at an acceptable cost. I claim that, upon examination, epistocratic theories fail to make this case. Rather, it is evident from this examination that there are various institutional mechanisms available with which democracy may manage the risks and harms which might arise from imbuing the incompetent with political power. This in turn suggests ways by which we might reform democracy to achieve similar results hoped for by epistocrats without the effort, risk, and cost of tearing down and rebuilding our fundamental political institutions.
ContributorsZhang, Alexander (Author) / Brake, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018