Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article evaluates the reliability of sensitivity tests. Using Monte Carlo methods we show that, first, the definition of robustness exerts a large influence on the robustness of variables. Second and more importantly, our results also demonstrate that inferences based on sensitivity tests are most likely to be valid if determinants and confounders are almost uncorrelated and if the variables included in the true model exert a strong influence on outcomes. Third, no definition of robustness reliably avoids both false positives and false negatives. We find that for a wide variety of data-generating processes, rarely used definitions of robustness perform better than the frequently used model averaging rule suggested by Sala-i-Martin. Fourth, our results also suggest that Leamer's extreme bounds analysis and Bayesian model averaging are extremely unlikely to generate false positives. Thus, if based on these inferential criteria a variable is robust, it is almost certain to belong into the empirical model. Fifth and finally, we also show that researchers should avoid drawing inferences based on lack of robustness.

Fakten und psychische Faktoren, die den Umgang mit Geld sowie die
Zinsempfindlichkeit von Individuen bestimmen.

Themen: Geldwertvertrauen; Konsumverhalten; Kaufentscheidungen;
Kaufpläne; Lebenshaltungskosten und Sparmöglichkeiten; Sparsamkeit;
Bargeldhaltung und Haltung von Liquiditätsreserven; Kontenbesitz;
Sparziele; Ermittlung der von den Individuen intendierten Anlagefristen
auf Spar- und Girokonten; Informiertheit über sowie Einstellungen zu
Wertpapierbesitz, Bausparen, Prämiensparen, Lebensversicherung und
Sparbuch; Schmuckbesitz als Vermögensanlage; erwartete
Einkommensentwicklung; Wohnungsausstattung und KFZ-Besitz;
Preisbewußtsein bei Benzinkäufen; Zinsempfindlichkeitsindex; Skala zur
psychologischen Charakterisierung des Befragten; ein Teil der
Skalenitems wurde den Befragten in einer Parallelversion vorgelegt.

Demographie: Alter; Familienstand; Schulbildung; Berufsausbildung;
Beruf; berufliche Position; Einkommen; Haushaltsgröße;
Haushaltszusammensetzung; regionale Herkunft; Besitz langlebiger
Wirtschaftsgüter; Besitz von Vermögen.

The ethics of sustainable art production

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a condition also known as Chemical Sensitivity (CS), Chemical Intolerance (CI), Idiopathic Environmental Illness (IEI) and Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT), is an acquired multifactorial syndrome characterized by a recurrent set of debilitating symptoms. The symptoms of this controversial disorder are reported to be induced by environmental chemicals at doses far below those usually harmful to most persons. They involve a large spectrum of organ systems and typically disappear when the environmental chemicals are removed. However, no clear link has emerged among self-reported MCS symptoms and widely accepted objective measures of physiological dysfunction, and no clear dose-response relationship between exposure and symptom reactions has been observed. In addition, the underlying etiology and pathogenic processes of the disorder remain unknown and disputed, although biologic and psychologic hypotheses abound. It is currently debated whether MCS should be considered a clinical entity at all. Nevertheless, in the last few decades MCS has received considerable scientific and governmental attention in light of the many persons reporting this illness. In this review, we provide a general overview of the history, definition, demographics, prevalence, and etiologic challenges in defining and understanding MCS.

Sensitivity Reading ist ein ergänzender Vorgang zum Lektorat eines literarischen Werkes bzw. eines Werkes der akademischen Forschungsliteratur. Ziel ist es, einen sensiblen, diskriminierungs- und klischeefreien Umgang in der Darstellung marginalisierter Personen(gruppen) zu gewährleisten. Das können zum Beispiel BIPOC, queere Menschen oder Menschen mit körperlichen oder psychischen Krankheiten sein. Beim Sensitivity Reading gilt es, die Reproduktion von -ismen, Stereotypen, Vorurteilen und Stigmatisierungen aus den Texten zu entfernen bzw. diese dahingehend umzuschreiben. Das Produkt sollte die betroffenen Personengruppen sensibel repräsentieren und damit zum Abbau von Diskriminierung und Klischees beitragen.
Sensitivity Reader sind nahezu immer selbst Teil einer marginalisierten Personengruppe und kennen sich auch sehr gut mit aktuellen (medialen) Diskursen zum Thema aus. Da Teil der Qualifikation somit die eigene Lebenswelt ist, wird oft auch mit verschiedenen Sensitivity Readern zusammen gearbeitet. Dadurch sollen unterschiedliche Erfahrungen und Perspektiven eingebracht werden.
Von der Beratung vor dem Schreiben, über den punktuellen Blick bei einzelnen Textpassagen bis hin zum kompletten Sensitivity Reading eines fertigen Werkes gibt es unterschiedliche Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Sensitivity Readern.
Die Idee kommt aus den USA und wird in Deutschland kontrovers diskutiert. Kritiker*innen sehen die Gefahr von Zensur und Einschränkungen der Freiheit der Literatur. Befürworter*innen sehen Sensitivity Reading als einen wichtigen Schritt auf dem Weg zu einem diskriminierungsfreien und sensiblen Sprachgebrauch.

AbstractIn risk analysis, sensitivity measures quantify the extent to which the probability distribution of a model output is affected by changes (stresses) in individual random input factors. For input factors that are statistically dependent, we argue that a stress on one input should also precipitate stresses in other input factors. We introduce a novel sensitivity measure, termed cascade sensitivity, defined as a derivative of a risk measure applied on the output, in the direction of an input factor. The derivative is taken after suitably transforming the random vector of inputs, thus explicitly capturing the direct impact of the stressed input factor, as well as indirect effects via other inputs. Furthermore, alternative representations of the cascade sensitivity measure are derived, allowing us to address practical issues, such as incomplete specification of the model and high computational costs. The applicability of the methodology is illustrated through the analysis of a commercially used insurance risk model.

The general and specific problems facing emergence of cutaneous sensitivity devices into a useful sub-system of communications systems are discussed. The cutaneous sensory channel is emerging as a contender for application in communications systems in pace with the solution of corollary problems of psychology, neurology and bio-electronics. Transduction of electrical energy into living systems is only beginning to be understood. When suitable hardware is designed to match the nerve impulse and neuronal channels, the safety and user acceptability of cutaneous sub-systems will enhance the reliability of modern communications under extremes of environment, as well as provide an independent channel for the sensorially deprived.

PurposeTo examine the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) and the Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ) in a single study in order to see how the two measures are related, as well as how they relate to other variables, in an effort to identify which scale constitutes a better measure of the equity sensitivity construct.Design/methodology/approachUsing a self‐report questionnaire with two samples, 164 students and 186 non‐students, we analyzed the convergent and discriminant validity of the ESI and the EPQ with established measures of Machiavellianism and Positive Affect/Negative Affect. Additionally, the study examined the factor structures of the ESI and the EPQ.FindingsThe summated ESI and EPQ scales showed little correlation with each other. Factor analysis of the scales revealed that the EPQ was multidimensional, while the ESI was unidimensional. Mixed findings among factor correlations precluded a definitive assessment of convergent or discriminant validity for the two scales. Many studies limit their investigation to a single population – either students or the general population – yet this study found significant differences in students' scores when compared to non‐students' scores.Research limitations/implicationsThis study uses a single self‐administered survey with two samples to examine equity sensitivity; as such, it suffers from the same potential for mono‐method bias as have previous studies on this topic. Differences between student and non‐student responses raise serious concerns; is the difference an artifact of flawed scales, is it indicative of a trait that is situational or that may evolve over time and experience, or is it the result of an anomalous sample? Additional research is needed to tease apart these issues.Originality/valueThis study highlights the differences between two scales purported to measure the same construct. The multidimensionality of the EPQ together with the lack of substantial correlation with the ESI lead one to conclude that the EPQ, while originally proposed to remedy problems with the ESI, has serious weaknesses itself. There is a critical need for further research on how to best measure this important construct.