7482 research outputs found
Sort by
Positive Emotions’ Effect on Buffering and Creativity: An Experimental Design
Get PDFPSY 296B: Honors Psychology; Professor Leslie D. Kirby. Includes a Powerpoint presentation.Extending beyond the Undoing Hypothesis and the Broaden-and-Build theory, this experimental
design tested whether participants induced with a positive emotion would respond less, using
self-report measures, to a mild achievement and social stressor compared to those in a neutral
condition. Compared to a neutral condition, participants induced with a positive emotion
reported enhanced positive affect. However, participants in the positive condition compared to
participants in the neutral condition did not demonstrate any differences in their emotional
response to a mild stressor of listing words that begin with a “J” for two minutes while being
recorded. Results failed to yield conclusive evidence of buffering, but successfully induced
positive affect as well as induced a mild stressor. Additional data suggests that participants induced with a positive emotion listed more J-words during the stressor task, thereby supporting the Broaden-and Build theory. Suggestions for further research include analyzing responses to different stressors that are more sensitive to creativity and cognitive flexibility as well as exploring how trait based optimism rather than emotionally induced positive emotions may act as a buffer.Vanderbilt UniversityPsychological SciencesThesis completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Program in Psychological Sciences under the Direction of Dr. Craig Smith and Leslie Kirb
The Peabody Reflector; Vol. 82, No. 1, 2013
No full textThe Peabody Reflector is published biannually by Vanderbilt's Peabody College of education and human development in cooperation with the Vanderbilt Office of DAR Communications.Vanderbilt University. Peabody Colleg
Vanderbilt Hustler; Vol. 125 Iss. 11 February 11, 2013
No full textThe official student newspaper at Vanderbilt University
Vanderbilt Hustler; Vol. 125 Iss. 14 February 21, 2013
No full textThe official student newspaper at Vanderbilt University
Seeking Genomic Knowledge: The Case for Clinical Restraint
No full textarticle published in law journalGenome sequencing technology provides new and promising tests for clinical practice,
including whole genome sequencing, which measures an individual's complete DNA
sequence, and whole exome sequencing, which measures the DNA for all genes coding
for proteins. These technologies make it possible to test for multiple genes in a single test,
which increases the efficiency of genetic testing. However, they can also produce large
amounts of information that cannot be interpreted or is of limited clinical utility. This
additional information could be distracting for patients and clinicians, and contribute to
unnecessary healthcare costs. The potential for genomic sequencing to improve care will
be context-dependent, varying for different patients and clinical settings. This Article
argues that a disciplined approach is needed, incorporating research to assess when and
how genomic information can improve clinical outcomes, practice guidelines that direct
optimal uses of genomic sequencing, and efforts to limit the production of genomic
information unrelated to the clinical needs of the patient. Without this approach, genomic
testing could add to current unsustainable healthcare costs and prove unaffordable in the
long run
The Derivative Right, or Why Copyright Law Protects Foxes Better than Hedgehogs
No full textarticle published in law journalThe derivative right is at the very core of copyright theory. What can and cannot be reused to create a new work impacts freedom of expression but also impacts the value of the markets for works and their various “derivatives.” The derivative right includes forms of derivation and adaptation, such as making a movie from a novel or translating a book. It also covers what this Article refers to as penumbral derivatives, which the US Copyright Act captures using the phrase “based upon” with respect to preexisting works. This leads to indeterminacy about the scope of the derivative right, which may have chilling effects on nonprofessional Internet users who may not have the time, desire, or resources to consider or negotiate copyright rights. This Article acknowledges that derivation often includes reproduction of all or part of a preexisting work. How is the derivative right different from the right of reproduction? That is the main question tackled in this Article. Using the Berne Convention negotiating history, as well as US, British, French, and German jurisprudence, this Article suggests that the derivative right has a different normative target than the right of reproduction, in spite of their considerable overlap. The Article enunciates six mobilizing principles, which it then proceeds to demonstrate. The Article also argues and demonstrates in particular that there is a hard line that divides fundamental changes that are noninfringing under a proper derivative right analysis (in most cases because the idea, not the expression, is appropriated), and those that are noninfringing as transformative fair uses. Finally, the Article strikes a note of caution specific to appropriation art
Good for You, Bad for Us: The Financial Disincentive for Net Demand Reduction
No full textarticle published in law reviewThis Article examines a principal barrier to reducing U.S. carbon emissions — electricity distributors’ financial incentives to sell more of their product — and introduces the concept of net demand reduction (“NDR”) as a primary goal for the modern energy regulatory system. Net electricity demand must decrease substantially from projected levels for the United States to achieve widely-endorsed carbon targets by 2050. Although social and behavioral research has identified cost-effective ways to reduce electricity demand, state-of-the-art programs to curtail demand have not been implemented on a widespread basis. We argue that electric distribution utilities are important gatekeepers that can determine whether these programs succeed in reducing demand, but regulatory incentives in most states discourage utilities from exploiting the full potential of these programs. We identify two conceptual barriers that stand in the way of changing utilities’ regulatory incentives to favor demand reduction. First, policy makers frequently conflate NDR with demand-side management (“DSM”). By NDR, we mean reductions in the total demand for energy, including electricity. In contrast, DSM typically involves load management to reduce electricity generation costs, such as shifting the timing of usage. DSM enables a subtle shift in energy debates and policies from how much electricity is used to when it is used, yet by expanding net electricity use and shifting the mix of power generation sources DSM also can increase carbon emissions. Second, in utility rate proceedings firms, regulators, and consumer advocates emphasize low per-unit rates, rather than low total costs to consumers. This focus on low electricity rates leads to policies that may achieve lower prices per unit, but that also steadily increase demand and overall consumer costs. We examine a range of instruments that can overcome these conceptual barriers and create incentives for NDR, including social cost approaches, performance standards, and decoupling utilities’ revenues and profits. We conclude that although no silver bullet exists for NDR, the imperative of reducing energy demand argues for greater deployment of imperfect tools
The First Year of "Say on Pay" Under Dodd-Frank: An Empirical Analysis and Look Forward
Get PDFarticle published in law reviewUsing voting data from the first year of “say on pay” votes under Dodd-Frank, we look at the patterns of shareholder voting in advisory votes on executive pay. Consistent with the more limited “say on pay” voting before Dodd-Frank, we find that shareholders in the first year under Dodd-Frank gave generally broad support to management pay packages. But not all pay packages received strong shareholder support. At some companies, management suffered the embarrassment of failed “say on pay” votes – that is, less than 50% of their company’s shareholders voted in favor of the proposal. In particular, we find that poorly-performing companies with high levels of “excess” executive pay, low total shareholder return, and negative ISS voting recommendations experienced greater shareholder “against” votes than at other firms.
Although “say on pay” votes are non-binding and corporate boards need not take action even if the proposal fails, most companies receiving negative ISS recommendations or experiencing low levels of “say on pay” support undertook additional communication with shareholders or made changes to their pay practices – reflecting a shift in the management-shareholder dynamic. During 2012, the second year of “say on pay” under Dodd-Frank, we find similar patterns, with companies responding proactively to an unfavorable ISS recommendation or a prior failed (or even weak) “say on pay” vote in 2011. We use four case studies to illustrate this new corporate governance dynamic, which we view as an important consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act
Policing Public Companies: An Empirical Examination of the Enforcement Landscape and the Role Played by State Securities Regulators
Get PDFMultiple different securities law enforcers can pursue U.S. public companies for the same misconduct. These enforcers include a variety of federal agencies, class action attorneys, and derivative litigation attorneys, as well as fifty separate state regulators. Scholars and policy makers have increasingly questioned whether the benefits of this multienforcer approach are worth the costs, or whether a more coordinated and streamlined securities enforcement regime might lead to efficiency gains. How serious are these concerns? And what role do state regulators play in the enforcement mix? Whereas the enforcement efforts of the Securities and Exchange Commission and class action lawyers have been well-studied, almost no empirical research has been done on state enforcement.
This Article provides an empirical foundation for considering these questions. We reviewed the Item 3 "material litigation" disclosures in the fiscal year 2004-2006 Form 10-Ks filed by every domestic public company that listed common stock on the New York Stock Exchange at any time from 2000-2010-a total of 5,441 Form 10-Ks filed by 1,977 distinct companies. In our unique dataset, 72% of companies disclosed some form of material litigation over the span of the three-year period examined, and 27% disclosed some form of securities litigation. Remarkably, well over half of the companies that disclosed securities litigation reported facing two or more different forms of securities litigation, and nearly 30% reported facing three or more.
The securities-related state matters disclosed in our dataset share some interesting characteristics. They tended to target out-of-state firms (68%) and to involve scandals that beset the financial industry (85%). Overwhelmingly, they were accompanied by a related federal action or investigation (91%), and very often were accompanied by related private litigation (67%). Whereas only 34% of states have an elected (as opposed to appointed) securities regulator, these states were responsible for 80% of the state matters disclosed. We ran regressions controlling for other variables that might influence a state's level of enforcement activity. Our statistically significant results indicate that states with elected enforcers brought securities-related matters at more than four times the rate of other states, and states with an elected Democrat serving as the securities regulator brought matters at nearly seven times the rate of other states.
Our findings bring into focus several important public policy questions concerning the use of multiple securities law enforcers in general, and the social value of state enforcement in particular, that merit further exploration