Distanced self-talk increases rational self-interest.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gainsburg I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8752811 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Antiviral agents have been hailed to hold considerable promise for the treatment and prevention of emerging viral diseases like H5N1 avian influenza and SARS. However, antiviral drugs are not completely harmless, and the conditions under which individuals are willing to participate in a large-scale antiviral drug treatment program are as yet unknown. We provide population dynamical and game theoretical analyses of large-scale prophylactic antiviral treatment programs. Throughout we compare the antiviral control strategy that is optimal from the public health perspective with the control strategy that would evolve if individuals make their own, rational decisions. To this end we investigate the conditions under which a large-scale antiviral control program can prevent an epidemic, and we analyze at what point in an unfolding epidemic the risk of infection starts to outweigh the cost of antiviral treatment. This enables investigation of how the optimal control strategy is moulded by the efficacy of antiviral drugs, the risk of mortality by antiviral prophylaxis, and the transmissibility of the pathogen. Our analyses show that there can be a strong incentive for an individual to take less antiviral drugs than is optimal from the public health perspective. In particular, when public health asks for early and aggressive control to prevent or curb an emerging pathogen, for the individual antiviral drug treatment is attractive only when the risk of infection has become non-negligible. It is even possible that from a public health perspective a situation in which everybody takes antiviral drugs is optimal, while the process of individual choice leads to a situation where nobody is willing to take antiviral drugs.
| S-EPMC2592701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The recent threat of bioterrorism has fueled debate on smallpox vaccination policy for the United States. Certain policy proposals call for voluntary mass vaccination; however, if individuals decide whether to vaccinate according to self-interest, the level of herd immunity achieved may differ from what is best for the population as a whole. We present a synthesis of game theory and epidemic modeling that formalizes this conflict between self-interest and group interest and shows that voluntary vaccination is unlikely to reach the group-optimal level. This shortfall results in a substantial increase in expected mortality after an attack.
| S-EPMC193525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In collaborative decision-making, partners compare reasons behind conflicting proposals through meta-talk. We investigated UK-based preschoolers' (mixed socioeconomic status) use of meta-talk (Data collection: 2018-2020). In Study 1, 5- and 7-year-old peer dyads (N = 128, 61 girls) heard conflicting claims about an animal from two informants. One prefaced her claim with "I know"; the other with "I think". Dyads identified the more reliable informant through meta-talk ("She said she knows"). In Study 2, 3- and 5-year-olds (N = 64, 34 girls) searched for a toy with an adult partner making incorrect proposals. Children refuted this through reporting what they had witnessed (It cannot be there because "I saw it move", "she moved it"). In preschool period, children start using meta-talk to make rational collaborative decisions.
| S-EPMC9541187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Altruism and the medical profession have been linked throughout the history of medicine. Students are drawn to the calling of medicine because of altruistic values, dedication to service, and the desire to alleviate suffering and promote healing. Despite a dedication to these values, altruism in medicine is threatened by empathy erosion that develops in the clinical years of medical school and an increasing rate of medical student burnout. Currently, there are two widespread movements in medicine aimed at addressing the dual loss of altruism and physician and student burnout-professionalism and wellness. Despite widespread recognition of the problems and programs aimed at improving them, there has been little headway, and even calls to abandon altruism in the modern marketplace of medicine. What is needed is not an abandonment of a fundamental, defining value of the profession, but a re-evaluation of the meaning of altruism in medicine and a framework that allows for students and physicians to provide altruistic care for a sustainable, rewarding career in the healing profession. This paper proposes the Enlightened Self-Interest in Altruism (ESIA) model as an ethical framework to allow medical students to synergize the interests of the self with those they serve in a mutually beneficial relationship to improve patient care and the healthcare system at large. The ESIA model acknowledges that egoism and altruism are intertwined, dynamic motivators of behavior. In the enlightened self-interest approach, the interests of the group are also the interests of the self. The physician-patient relationship is a dyad in which egoism and altruism may converge in an enlightened way that acknowledges that the interests of one are the interests of the whole. This is a paradigm shift from the historical view of egoism and altruism as opposing motivations. This paper will present the threats to altruism, explore the interface of egoism and altruism in a clinical vignette, and then present the ESIA framework as an educational approach to aligning the interests of providers and patients to prevent burnout and promote altruism.
| S-EPMC7224037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAltruism refers to acting in 'the best interest of patients, not self-interest'. With an observed discordance between the concept and practice of altruism, and increasing attention to 'pathologic altruism', the role of altruism is blurred in present day medical care. In this background, the required balance of altruistic attitude which needs to be fostered in medical students needs clarity. This problem may be best addressed by the practicing clinicians. The objectives of this study were to explore clinicians' understanding of altruism in the clinical context and to identify the key concepts of altruism which they felt, must be included in clinical practice.MethodsIt was an exploratory qualitative study to identify clinicians' understanding of altruism and the key practice points for altruism. Online semi-structured interviews were conducted from 18 clinicians through Zoom and transcribed using Otter. Open coding of interview transcripts was done using Atlas ti 8 and grouped by commonalities under sub themes and themes.ResultsThe main concepts regarding the clinicians' understanding of altruism were prioritizing patients' interest above oneself, favouring patients beyond routine duty and organized team work for practicing altruism. The essential practice areas identified for altruism were finding a balance between altruistic tendency and self/family life, identifying one's individual capacity for altruism, establishing teamwork for developing a workplace altruistic attitude, and facilitating patients beyond routine duty.ConclusionsAltruism is an important professionalism attribute for clinicians, however prioritizing patients interest requires a balanced approach so that it is effective and sustainable. Workplace altruistic cultures may be better promoted through organized team-based approach rather than individual efforts.
| S-EPMC8421461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the best-known and most replicated laboratory results in behavioral economics is that bargainers frequently reject low offers, even when it harms their material self-interest. This finding could have important implications for international negotiations on many problems facing humanity today, because models of international bargaining assume exactly the opposite: that policy makers are rational and self-interested. However, it is unknown whether elites who engage in diplomatic bargaining will similarly reject low offers because past research has been based almost exclusively on convenience samples of undergraduates, members of the general public, or small-scale societies rather than highly experienced elites who design and bargain over policy. Using a unique sample of 102 policy and business elites who have an average of 21 y of practical experience conducting international diplomacy or policy strategy, we show that, compared with undergraduates and the general public, elites are actually more likely to reject low offers when playing a standard "ultimatum game" that assesses how players bargain over a fixed resource. Elites with more experience tend to make even higher demands, suggesting that this tendency only increases as policy makers advance to leadership positions. This result contradicts assumptions of rational self-interested behavior that are standard in models of international bargaining, and it suggests that the adoption of global agreements on international trade, climate change, and other important problems will not depend solely on the interests of individual countries, but also on whether these accords are seen as equitable to all member states.
| S-EPMC4284540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current study explored whether earned entitlement modulated the perception of fairness in three experiments. A preliminary resource earning task was added before players decided how to allocate the resource they jointly earned. Participants' decision in allocation, their responses to equal or unequal offers, whether advantageous or disadvantageous, and subjective ratings of fairness were all assessed in the current study. Behavioral results revealed that participants proposed more generous offers and showed enhanced tolerance to disadvantageous unequal offers from others when they performed worse than their presumed "partners," while the reverse was true in the better-performance condition. The subjective ratings also indicated the effect of earned entitlement, such that worse performance was associated with higher perceived feelings of fairness for disadvantageous unequal offers, while better performance was associated with higher feelings of fairness for advantageous unequal offers. Equal offers were considered "fair" only when earned entitlement was even between two parties. In sum, the perception of fairness is modulated by an integration of egalitarian motivation and entitlement. In addition to justice principles, participants were also motivated by self-interest, such that participants placed more weight on entitlement in the better-performance condition than in the worse-performance condition. These results imply that earned entitlement is evaluated in a self-serving way.
| S-EPMC3767679 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11344805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Medical schools in the United Kingdom are under increasing pressure to provide more streamlined, applicable teaching due to rising numbers of trainee doctors but are failing to meet their educational need for otolaryngology. The recent novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed additional pressures on medical schools to adapt the medium over which the curriculum is delivered. The use of tactile learning with three-dimensional models and distanced learning via videoconferencing may provide alternative teaching methods to meet otolaryngology undergraduate learning requirements. This pilot study aimed to assess the differences in undergraduate student attitudes toward tactile learning via nontactile distanced learning and review their acceptability among this cohort. Methods Two groups of medical students observed a single educational event on the larynx and management of the airway. The learning opportunity was delivered in a lecture format with the lecturer demonstrating on an anatomical model of the larynx. Group one (tactile group) had an identical model to interact with during the lecture and were present within the lecture theater; group two (nontactile group) did not and observed the lecture via video link. Students were asked to rank their opinion to several statements about the session based on an 11-point Likert's scale and give qualitative feedback. Results All ranked feedback was mainly positive. Tactile learning was statistically equivalent to nontactile learning based on the ranked feedback from the students, except for "improvement in anatomical knowledge," for which the students believed tactile learning was superior ( p = 0.017). A variety of qualitative feedback was received by both groups. Conclusion This pilot study provides evidence for the acceptability among students of the use of nontactile distanced learning to deliver the otolaryngology undergraduate curriculum compared with tactile learning. This can provide the basis for larger studies to assess the educational impact of these different teaching methods.
| S-EPMC8440056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of our study was to evaluate the perceptions of clinical faculty while working with medical students in a novel setting of virtual care following the COVID-19 pandemic.ActivityA survey of faculty, fellows, and residents was conducted to assess educators' perceptions of virtual teaching before trying it and after 3 months of experience.ResultsPerceived effectiveness of teaching students acute care significantly improved as did perceived effectiveness of teaching chronic care.DiscussionWe anticipate that continued experience and comfort with virtual platforms would boost this perception further, allowing faculty development to be honed for optimal teaching in this new paradigm.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01685-9.
| S-EPMC9673886 | biostudies-literature