Use of online health information to manage children’s health care: A prospective study investigating parental decisions

Background The use of the internet to access information is rapidly increasing; however, the quality of health information provided on various online sites is questionable. We aimed to examine the underlying factors that guide parents' decisions to use online information to manage their child's health care, a behaviour which has not yet been explored systematically. Methods Parents (N=391) completed a questionnaire assessing the standard theory of planned behaviour (TPB) measures of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control (PBC), and intention as well as the underlying TPB belief-based items (i.e., behavioural, normative, and control beliefs) in addition to a measure of perceived risk and demographic variables. Two months later, consenting parents completed a follow-up telephone questionnaire which assessed the decisions they had made regarding their use of online information to manage their child's health care during the previous 2 months. Results We found support for the TPB constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC as well as the additional construct of perceived risk in predicting parents' intentions to use online information to manage their child's health care, with further support found for intentions, but not PBC, in predicting parents' behaviour. The results of the TPB belief-based analyses also revealed important information about the critical beliefs that guide parents' decisions to engage in this child health management behaviour. Conclusions This theory-based investigation to understand parents' motivations and online information-seeking behaviour is key to developing recommendations and policies to guide more appropriate help-seeking actions among parents.

Representing the epistemic nature of teachers’ practical knowledge : The case of class teachers’ general pedagogy

The present study addressed the epistemology of teachers’ practical knowledge. Drawing from the literature, teachers’ practical knowledge is defined as all teachers’ cognitions (e.g., beliefs, values, motives, procedural knowing, and declarative knowledge) that guide their practice of teaching. The teachers’ reasoning that lies behind their practical knowledge is addressed to gain insight into its epistemic nature. I studied six class teachers’ practical knowledge; they teach in the metropolitan region of Helsinki. Relying on the assumptions of the phenomenographic inquiry, I collected and analyzed the data. I analyzed the data in two stages where the first stage involved an abductive procedure, and the second stage an inductive procedure for interpretation, and thus developed the system of categories. In the end, a quantitative analysis nested into the qualitative findings to study the patterns of the teachers’’ reasoning. The results indicated that teachers justified their practical knowledge based on morality and efficiency of action; efficiency of action was found to be presented in two different ways: authentic efficiency and naïve efficiency. The epistemic weight of morality was embedded in what I call “moral care”. The core intention of teachers in the moral care was the commitment that they felt about the “whole character” of students. From this perspective the “dignity” and the moral character of the students should not replaced for any other “instrumental price”. “Caring pedagogy” was the epistemic value of teachers’ reasoning in the authentic efficiency. The central idea in the caring pedagogy was teachers’ intentions to improve the “intellectual properties” of “all or most” of the students using “flexible” and “diverse” pedagogies. However, “regulating pedagogy” was the epistemic condition of practice in the cases corresponding to naïve efficiency. Teachers argued that an effective practical knowledge should regulate and manage the classroom activities, but the targets of the practical knowledge were mainly other “issues “or a certain percentage of the students. In these cases, the teachers’ arguments were mainly based on the notion of “what worked” regardless of reflecting on “what did not work”. Drawing from the theoretical background and the data, teachers’ practical knowledge calls for “praxial knowledge” when they used the epistemic conditions of “caring pedagogy” and “moral care”. It however calls for “practicable” epistemic status when teachers use the epistemic condition of regulating pedagogy. As such, praxial knowledge with the dimensions of caring pedagogy and moral care represents the “normative” perspective on teachers’ practical knowledge, and thus reflects a higher epistemic status in comparison to “practicable” knowledge, which represents a “descriptive” perception toward teachers’ practical knowledge and teaching.

Group Beliefs : Studies on the Nature and Logic of Collective Doxastic Attitudes

This thesis studies the nature and logic of collective doxastic attitudes, or what is referred to in ordinary language as "group beliefs". Beliefs and other intentional attitudes are attributed to groups and collections of people, and such attributions are used to explain and predict the actions of groups. The thesis develops an understanding of group beliefs as voluntarily adopted views or acceptances rather than as ordinary beliefs. Such an understanding can provide new answers to questions concerning collective knowledge and justification of group beliefs, and it allows developing modal logics with collective doxastic and epistemic notions. The thesis consists of six articles. The first three articles are philosophical studies concerned with the nature of group beliefs. The last three articles are logical studies that aim at developing proof-theoretical calculi for reasoning about collective doxastic attitudes.

Adaptation of a questionnaire to assess the epistemological beliefs of mathematics in secondary school teachers

The objective of the study is to determine the psychometric properties of the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire on Mathematics. 171 Secondary School Mathematics Teachers of the Central Region of Cuba participated. The results show acceptable internal consistency. The factorial structure of the scale revealed three major factors, consistent with the Model of the Three Constructs: beliefs about knowledge, about learning and teaching. Irregular levels in the development of the epistemological belief system about mathematics of these teachers were shown, with a tendency among naivety and sophistication poles. In conclusion, the questionnaire is useful for evaluating teacher’s beliefs about mathematics.

Children’s attributions of belief to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence

The capacity to attribute beliefs to others in order to understand action is one of the mainstays of human cognition. Yet it is debatable whether children attribute beliefs in the same way to all agents. In this paper, we present the results of a false-belief task concerning humans and God run with a sample of Maya children aged 4–7, and place them in the context of several psychological theories of cognitive development. Children were found to attribute beliefs in different ways to humans and God. The evidence also speaks to the debate concerning the universality and uniformity of the development of folk-psychological reasoning.

Korean Parental Beliefs About ELT From the Perspective of Teachers

In South Korea, as in many other parts of the world, children begin learning English when they are very young. Korean parents want their children to learn English as quickly as possible and often make heavy financial and other investments in their children’s English language education. English language teachers of school-age learners in Korea often feel pressure and in some cases criticism from parents regarding English language instruction. This article reports the results of a study designed to begin examining the perceptions that Korean parents hold regarding English language instruction. It illustrates how some of their beliefs reflect the latest language teaching research, whereas others are more indicative of traditional Korean belief systems, educational approaches, and methodologies.

A Syntactic Approach to Revising Epistemic States with Uncertain Inputs

Revising its beliefs when receiving new information is an important ability of any intelligent system. However, in realistic settings the new input is not always certain. A compelling way of dealing with uncertain input in an agent-based setting is to treat it as unreliable input, which may strengthen or weaken the beliefs of the agent. Recent work focused on the postulates associated with this form of belief change and on finding semantical operators that satisfy these postulates. In this paper we propose a new syntactic approach for this form of belief change and show that it agrees with the semantical definition. This makes it feasible to develop complex agent systems capable of efficiently dealing with unreliable input in a semantically meaningful way. Additionally, we show that imposing restrictions on the input and the beliefs that are entailed allows us to devise a tractable approach suitable for resource-bounded agents or agents where reactiveness is of paramount importance.

A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states

Belief revision performs belief change on an agent’s beliefs when new evidence (either of the form of a propositional formula or of the form of a total pre-order on a set of interpretations) is received. Jeffrey’s rule is commonly used for revising probabilistic epistemic states when new information is probabilistically uncertain. In this paper, we propose a general epistemic revision framework where new evidence is of the form of a partial epistemic state. Our framework extends Jeffrey’s rule with uncertain inputs and covers well-known existing frameworks such as ordinal conditional function (OCF) or possibility theory. We then define a set of postulates that such revision operators shall satisfy and establish representation theorems to characterize those postulates. We show that these postulates reveal common characteristics of various existing revision strategies and are satisfied by OCF conditionalization, Jeffrey’s rule of conditioning and possibility conditionalization. Furthermore, when reducing to the belief revision situation, our postulates can induce Darwiche and Pearl’s postulates C1 and C2.

An Epistemic Argument in Support of Liberal Neutrality

My aim in the present paper is to develop a new kind of argument in support of the ideal of liberal neutrality. This argument combines some basic moral principles with a thesis about the relationship between the correct standards of justification for a belief/action and certain contextual factors. The idea is that the level of importance of what is at stake in a specific context of action determines how demanding the correct standards to justify an action based on a specific set of beliefs ought to be. In certain exceptional contexts –where the seriousness of harm in case of mistake and the level of an agent’s responsibility for the outcome of his action are specially high– a very small probability of making a mistake should be recognized as a good reason to avoid to act based on beliefs that we nonetheless affirm with a high degree of confidence and that actually justify our action in other contexts. The further steps of the argument consist in probing 1) that the fundamental state’s policies are such a case of exceptional context, 2) that perfectionist policies are the type of actions we should avoid, and 3) that policies that satisfy neutral standards of justification are not affected by the reasons which lead to reject perfectionist policies.

Epistemic deontologism and the voluntarist strategy against doxastic involuntarism

According to the deontological conception of epistemic justification, a belief is justified when it is our obligation or duty as rational creatures to believe it. However, this view faces an important objection according to which we cannot have such epistemic obligations since our beliefs are never under our voluntary control. One possible strategy against this argument is to show that we do have voluntary control over some of our beliefs, and that we therefore have epistemic obligations. This is what I call the voluntarist strategy. I examine it and argue that it is not promising. I show how the voluntarist attempts of Carl Ginet and Brian Weatherson fail, and conclude that it would be more fruitful for deontologists to look for a different strategy.

Can Rachman’s indirect pathways be used to un-learn fear? A prospective paradigm to test whether children’s fears can be reduced using positive information and modelling a non-anxious response

This study investigated whether children’s fears could be un-learned using Rachman’s indirect pathways for learning fear. We hypothesised that positive information and modelling a non-anxious response are effective methods of un-learning fears acquired through verbal information. One hundred and seven children aged 6–8 years received negative information about one animal and no information about another. Fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance were measured. Children were randomised to receive positive verbal information, modelling, or a control task. Fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance were measured again. Positive information and modelling led to lower fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance than the control condition. Positive information was more effective than modelling in reducing fear beliefs and both methods significantly reduced behavioural avoidance. The results support Rachman’s indirect pathways as viable fear un-learning pathways and supports associative learning theories.

A new epistemic model

Meier (2012) gave a "mathematical logic foundation" of the purely measurable universal type space (Heifetz and Samet, 1998). The mathematical logic foundation, however, discloses an inconsistency in the type space literature: a finitary language is used for the belief hierarchies and an infinitary language is used for the beliefs. In this paper we propose an epistemic model to fix the inconsistency above. We show that in this new model the universal knowledgebelief space exists, is complete and encompasses all belief hierarchies. Moreover, by examples we demonstrate that in this model the players can agree to disagree Aumann (1976)'s result does not hold, and Aumann and Brandenburger (1995)'s conditions are not sufficient for Nash equilibrium. However, we show that if we substitute selfevidence (Osborne and Rubinstein, 1994) for common knowledge, then we get at that both Aumann (1976)'s and Aumann and Brandenburger (1995)'s results hold.

Exploring the Justificational Status of Assertions Made About Nursing’s Collective Beliefs

Nursing publications frequently reference groups (e.g. the group nurses). The nature and capabilities of group agents or collective subjects, and the relationship between nursing as a group and nurses as individuals is, however, rarely made explicit in these publications. Following Alvin Goldman, questions pertaining to groups can be classified as metaphysical or epistemic. Metaphysical questions take two forms. First, we might ask about the ontological status of group agents. For example, to what extent, if at all, do group agents exist and act independently of their constituent members? Second, we can ask whether group agents have psychological states or properties that can, for example, be formulated as propositional attitudes and, if they can, in what ways are group attitudes correlated with or tied to those of individual group members? In this presentation, having recognised the potential reality of group ontological and psychological being, I examine an under researched element of social epistemology. Specifically, the potential of non-individualist reliabilism (social process reliabilism) to justify doxastic group beliefs (i.e. statements such as “nurses believe that”) are considered. It is suggested that this issue has concrete implications for how we think about nursing.

Connecting the dots: Examining the role of parental beliefs and preschoolers’ affect and engagement in predicting parent-child number exploration during a meaningful math experience

The current study examined the frequency and quality of how 3- to 4-year-old children and their parents explore the relations between symbolic and non-symbolic quantities in the context of a playful math experience, as well as the role of both parent and child factors in this exploration. Preschool children’s numerical knowledge was assessed while parents completed a survey about the number-related experiences they share with their children at home, and their math-related beliefs. Parent-child dyads were then videotaped playing a modified version of the card game War. Results suggest that parents and children explored quantity explicitly on only half of the cards and card pairs played, and dyads of young children and those with lower number knowledge tended to be most explicit in their quantity exploration. Dyads with older children, on the other hand, often completed their turns without discussing the numbers at all, likely because they were knowledgeable enough about numbers that they could move through the game with ease. However, when dyads did explore the quantities explicitly, they focused on identifying numbers symbolically, used non-symbolic card information interchangeably with symbolic information to make the quantity comparison judgments, and in some instances, emphasized the connection between the symbolic and non-symbolic number representations on the cards. Parents reported that math experiences such as card game play and quantity comparison occurred relatively infrequently at home compared to activities geared towards more foundational practice of number, such as counting out loud and naming numbers. However, parental beliefs were important in predicting both the frequency of at-home math engagement as well as the quality of these experiences. In particular, parents’ specific beliefs about their children’s abilities and interests were associated with the frequency of home math activities, while parents’ math-related ability beliefs and values along with children’s engagement in the card game were associated with the quality of dyads’ number exploration during the card game. Taken together, these findings suggest that card games can be an engaging context for parent-preschooler exploration of numbers in multiple representations, and suggests that parents’ beliefs and children’s level of engagement are important predictors of this exploration.