A growing body of work argues that we should reform problematic emotions like anxiety, anger, and shame: doing this will allow us to better harness the contributions that these emotions can make to our agency and wellbeing. But feminist philosophers worry that prescriptions to correct these inappropriate emotions will only further marginalize women, minorities, and other members of subordinated groups. While much in these debates turns on empirical questions about how we can change problematic emotion norms for the better, to (...) date, little has been done by either side to assess how we might do this, much less in ways that are responsive to the feminists’ worries. Drawing on research in cognitive science, this paper argues that though the feminists’ worries are real, the leading proposals for remedying them are inadequate. It then develops an alternative strategy for reshaping problematic emotion norms—one that’s sensitive to the feminists’ concerns. (shrink)

The paper explores the topic of organizational routines from a philosophical vantage point to see how the philosophy of action may help improve its understanding in organizational research. The main goal is to show the distinctive complexity of the intentional picture of routines. In this respect, the paper clarifies the interrelations between psychological habits and routines and describes similarities and differences between them. It also highlights the special place of mindfulness as a psycho-cognitive mechanism of action meta-control in intentional explanations (...) of routine complexity. (shrink)

Daily function depends on an ability to mentally map our environment. Environmental factors such as visibility and layout, and internal factors such as psychological stress, can challenge spatial memory and efficient navigation. Importantly, people vary dramatically in their ability to navigate flexibly and overcome such challenges. In this paper, we present an overview of “schema theory” and our view of its relevance to navigational memory research. We review several studies from our group and others, that integrate manipulations of environmental complexity (...) and affective state in order to gain a richer understanding of the mechanisms that underlie individual differences in navigational memory. Our most recent data explicitly link such individual differences to ideas rooted in schema theory, and we discuss the potential for this work to advance our understanding of cognitive decline with aging. The data from this body of work highlight the powerful impacts of individual cognitive traits and affective states on the way people take advantage of environmental features and adopt navigational strategies. (shrink)

This issue assesses how human spatial navigation differs: within individuals across short‐term variations in mood or stress, and between individuals across variations in age, gender, education, culture, and physical environment.

Daily function depends on an ability to mentally map our environment. Environmental factors such as visibility and layout, and internal factors such as psychological stress, can challenge spatial memory and efficient navigation. Importantly, people vary dramatically in their ability to navigate flexibly and overcome such challenges. In this paper, we present an overview of “schema theory” and our view of its relevance to navigational memory research. We review several studies from our group and others, that integrate manipulations of environmental complexity (...) and affective state in order to gain a richer understanding of the mechanisms that underlie individual differences in navigational memory. Our most recent data explicitly link such individual differences to ideas rooted in schema theory, and we discuss the potential for this work to advance our understanding of cognitive decline with aging. The data from this body of work highlight the powerful impacts of individual cognitive traits and affective states on the way people take advantage of environmental features and adopt navigational strategies. (shrink)

In this paper, we consider one of the ways in which shared valuing is normatively significant. More specifically, we analyze the processes that can reliably provide normative grounding for the standing to rebuke others for their failures to treat something as valuable. Yet problems with grounding this normative standing quickly arise, as it is not immediately clear why shared valuing binds group members together in ways that can sustain the collective pursuit of shared ends. Responding to this difficulty is no (...) easy task, since doing so requires demonstrating that the standing to call on one's fellow participants because of shared forms of valuing is not merely a side effect of members authority to call on their fellow participants to do their fair share in a collective endeavor. This is, to the best of our knowledge, a problem that the sparse literature on shared valuing has yet to consider. We argue that the best way to address this difficulty is to consider the real‐world complexity of how forms of valuing come to be shared within well‐structured collectives and how members internalize the evaluative tendencies that sustain shared valuing. To accomplish those ends, we examine two different ways that shared valuing is cultivated within well‐structured groups and the corresponding ways that members internalize forms of valuing; specifically, we examine differences between forms of valuing that are passed downward from the top of a group, as they are in the U.S. Military, and forms of valuing that bubble‐up through local patterns of interaction, as they do among the Zapatistas of Chiapas. (shrink)