Carsten Sauer

The Rationale for Consuming Cognitive Enhancement Drugs in University Students and Teachers

Cognitive enhancement (CE) is the pharmaceutical augmentation of mental abilities (e.g., learning or memory) without medical necessity. This topic has recently attracted widespread attention in scientific and social circles. However, knowledge regarding the mechanisms that underlie the decision to use CE medication is limited. To analyze these decisions, we used data from two online surveys of randomly sampled university teachers (N = 1,406) and students (N = 3,486). Each respondent evaluated one randomly selected vignette with regard to a hypothetical CE drug. We experimentally varied the characteristics of the drugs among vignettes and distributed them among respondents. In addition, the respondent’s internalization of social norms with respect to CE drug use was measured. Our results revealed that students were more willing to enhance cognitive performance via drugs than university teachers, although the overall willingness was low. The probability of side effects and their strength reduced the willingness to use CE drugs among students and university teachers, whereas higher likelihoods and magnitudes of CE increased this propensity. In addition, the internalized norm against CE drug use influenced decision making: Higher internalization decreased the willingness to use such medications. Students’ internalized norms more strongly affected CE abstinence compared with those of university teachers. Furthermore, internalized norms negatively interacted with the instrumental incentives for taking CE medication. This internalization limited the influence of and deliberation on instrumental incentives. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence regarding the importance of social norms and their influence on rational decision making with regard to CE. We identified previously undiscovered decision-making patterns concerning CE. Thus, this study provides insight into the motivators and inhibitors of CE drug use. These findings have implications for contending with CE behavior by highlighting the magnitude of potential side effects and by informing the debate regarding the ethics of CE use.

Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics

BackgroundThe use of cognitive enhancement (CE) by means of pharmaceutical agents has been the subject of intense debate both among scientists and in the media. This study investigates several drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use prescription drugs non-medically for augmenting brain capacity.MethodsWe conducted a web-based study among 2,877 students from randomly selected disciplines at German universities. Using a factorial survey, respondents expressed their willingness to take various hypothetical CE-drugs; the drugs were described by five experimentally varied characteristics and the social environment by three varied characteristics. Personal characteristics and demographic controls were also measured.ResultsWe found that 65.3% of the respondents staunchly refused to use CE-drugs. The results of a multivariate negative binomial regression indicated that respondents’ willingness to use CE-drugs increased if the potential drugs promised a significant augmentation of mental capacity and a high probability of achieving this augmentation. Willingness decreased when there was a high probability of side effects and a high price. Prevalent CE-drug use among peers increased willingness, whereas a social environment that strongly disapproved of these drugs decreased it. Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, pronounced academic procrastination, high cognitive test anxiety, low intrinsic motivation, low internalization of social norms against CE-drug use, and past experiences with CE-drugs increased willingness. The potential severity of side effects, social recommendations about using CE-drugs, risk preferences, and competencies had no measured effects upon willingness.ConclusionsThese findings contribute to understanding factors that influence the willingness to use CE-drugs. They support the assumption of instrumental drug use and may contribute to the development of prevention, policy, and educational strategies.

Why Should Women Get Less? : Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap from Multifactorial Survey Experiments

Gender pay gaps likely persist in Western societies because both men and women consider somewhat lower earnings for female employees than for otherwise similar male employees to be fair. Two different theoretical approaches explain “legitimate” wage gaps: same-gender referent theory and reward expectations theory. The first approach states that women compare their lower earnings primarily with that of other underpaid women; the second approach argues that both men and women value gender as a status variable that yields lower expectations about how much each gender should be paid for otherwise equal work. This article is the first to analyze hypotheses contrasting the two theories using an experimental factorial survey design. In 2009, approximately 1,600 German residents rated more than 26,000 descriptions of fictitious employees. The labor market characteristics of each employee and the amount of information given about them were experimentally varied across all descriptions. The results primarily support reward expectations theory. Both men and women produced gender pay gaps in their fairness ratings (with the mean ratio of just female-to-male wages being .92). Respondents framed the just pay ratios by the gender inequalities they experienced in their own occupations, and some evidence of gender-specific evaluation standards emerged.

Impact of Contextual Factors and Substance Characteristics on Perspectives toward Cognitive Enhancement

Enhancing cognitive performance with substances–especially prescription drugs–is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as perceptions of substance safety, shape the willingness and acceptability of using a substance to enhance academic performance. Among the findings is evidence of a contagion effect meaning that the willingness was higher when the respondents have more CE drug users in their social network. We also found deterrence effects from strong side effects of using the substance, as well as from policy regulations and sanctions. Regulations might activate social norms against usage and sanctions can be seen as costly to users. Moreover, enhancement substances seem to be most tempting to low performers to catch up with others compared to high performers. By identifying contextual factors and substance characteristics influencing the willingness and acceptability of cognitive enhancers, policy approaches could consider these insights to better manage the use of such substances.

When Decisions Should Be Shared A Study of Social Norms in Medical Decision Making Using a Factorial Survey Approach

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) is often advocated as an ideal for making medical decisions. Until now, however, opinions regarding which treatment situations warrant SDM have not been systematically investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine social norms regarding medical decision making, using a factorial survey design. Methods. The factorial survey applied in this study consisted of 7 situational factors (e.g., the reason for consultation), each with 2 to 3 levels (e.g., prevention and severe disease). These factors were turned into various descriptions of treatment situations. A total of 101 physicians, 115 patients, and 113 members of self-help groups participated in the study. Each participant assessed 10 vignettes using a 5-point scale to indicate who they thought should make the decision in each specific situation. Results. Most assessments across the 3 groups called for a shared decision (39%). Ordered logistic regression analysis demonstrated that, according to study participants, all 7 situational factors (reason for consultation, time frame of negative outcomes, time pressure, number of therapeutic options, side effects, scientific evidence of efficacy, and desire to participate) significantly affected how decisions regarding treatment should be made. The strongest factor was the patient’s desire to participate in decision making (odds ratio = 1.84; P ≤ 0.001), followed by the reason for consultation (odds ratio = 0.69; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions. This study reveals that there is a general desire for SDM in a variety of treatment situations. Furthermore, based on the responses of our participants, our findings also lay the framework in determining which treatment situations warrant SDM.

The Impact of Within and Between Occupational Inequalities on People's Justice Perceptions Towards Their Own Earnings

This paper investigates justice perceptions of employees towards their own earnings. Earnings are decomposed into three components: (1) In returns based on human capital endowments, (2) in returns based on individual residual differences and (3) in returns based on differences between occupations. The legitimacy of these earnings components is measured via the justice assessments of employees. Based on theoretical models from justice research and class theory it is hypothesized that earnings inequality resulting from human capital factors is evaluated as just, whereas residual inequality and occupational inequality are perceived as unjust. The hypotheses are tested by using data from a German longitudinal panel study (SOEP) of the years 2005 to 2011. These data allow studying changes of individual earnings and justice evaluations in a household panel over the time span of six years (with four biennial measurement points). The findings support our hypotheses indicating that losses or gains in earnings which are due to changes in human capital endowments do not affect justice perceptions of own earnings. Losses or gains stemming from changes of a persons earnings position within the occupational group or the position of a persons occupational group within the earnings hierarchy of a society, however, affect justice perceptions remarkably. Thus, we can show that justice evaluations of own earnings do not solely depend on compensation for individual investments but also on residual differences in earnings within and between occupational groups.

Sociology of justice

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the empirical justice research done so far within sociology and aim to contribute to a clearer understanding of what constitutes a sociological approach. In order to do so, we first introduce the multilevel model of sociological explanation and derive four perspectives of sociological justice research: the analysis of institution Error! Bookmark not defined.s and discourses on the societal level and the analysis of attitudes and behavior on the individual level. As sociological attitude research is the field with the most advanced theories and the broadest stock of empirical findings, we will focus on such and report its central theoretical developments and main empirical results. We restrict our review to what is usually called “distributive justice” i.e., justice conceptions related to the allocation and distribution of goods (primarily income and wealth) and burdens (e.g., taxes or welfare payment).

Macht Ungerechtigkeit krank? Gesundheitliche Folgen von Einkommens(un)gerechtigkeit

Theoretical research on inequity and social justice as well as experimental research indicate that perceived injustice may cause stress and thus may have negative effects on health. Using longitudinal data from the German Socio-economic Panel (SOEP) of the years 2005 to 2011, this study investigates if perceptions of earnings (un)fairness impact employees’ health. The analyses show that a change in the justice evaluation of one’s earnings coincides with a change in one’s health: Earnings that are evaluated as unjustly low are associated with a decline in subjective health. The analysis indicates that this effect is not due to respondents’ actual earnings or occupational position, but that the perception of one’s earnings as unjustly low appears to have an independent effect on respondents’ health. The study, moreover, shows that low-skilled employees, employees in temporary employment, and those with low gross hourly wages are particularly prone to perceive their earnings as unjustly low.

The justice of earnings in dual-earner households

Abstract Over recent decades, the rise in female labor market participation and the increase in “atypical” employment arrangements have brought about a steady decline in traditional “male breadwinner” households and an increasing number of dual-earner households. Against this backdrop, the present paper investigates how different household contexts—ranging from traditional “male breadwinner” households to those challenging this model through joint contributions to household income—affect household members’ subjective evaluations of the justice of their personal income. In the first step, we derive three criteria used by individuals to evaluate the justice of personal earnings: compensation for services rendered, coverage of basic needs, and the opportunity to earn social approval. In the second step, we apply considerations from household economics and new approaches from gender research to explain why mens and womens evaluations of justice are determined to a considerable degree by the specific situation within their household. The assumptions derived regarding gender-specific patterns in justice attitudes are then tested on longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). The results support our central thesis that dual-earner households both reinforce and undermine gender-specific patterns in the evaluation of personal earnings. These patterns are undermined because women in dual-income households tend to have higher income expectations that challenge the existing gender wage gap. At the same time, gender-specific patterns are reinforced because men evaluate the justice of their personal income in relation to their ability to fulfill traditional gender norms.

Soziologische Gerechtigkeitsanalyse. Überlegungen zur theoretischen Fundierung eines Forschungsfeldes

Abstract During the last years the focus of sociological justice research has been on the measurement of justice attitudes of the people outside the laboratory via large scale and internationally comparative surveys. Within these surveys one attempt has been to identify the social determinants and the consequences of individual justice attitudes. However, the theoretical foundation of this research within exiting sociological theories and concepts has been neglected. Therefore, the sociological justice research is so far not able to provide theoretically sound answers to at least two questions: (1) why do people think justice is important, and (2) what are the reasons for substantively different justice attitudes? By using the theory of social production functions and the goal-framing theory this contribution tries to overcome this shortcoming and suggests an explanation why justice is seen as a desirable goal and why norms of justice are in the very own interest of the individual. Assumptions are derived under which conditions individuals declare themselves in favor of a specific principle of justice to solve conflicts of allocation and distribution. The aim of this paper is to derive theoretically substantive and empirically testable predictions based on a general theory of action and thus to contribute to a stronger theoretical foundation of sociological justice research.