@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ReisPfisterKundeetal.2023,
  author    = {Reis, Moritz and Pfister, Roland and Kunde, Wilfried and Foerster, Anna},
  title     = {Creative thinking does not promote dishonesty},
  series = {Royal Society Open Science},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Royal Society Open Science},
  number    = {12},
  issn      = {2054-5703},
  doi       = {10.1098/rsos.230879},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-349859},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {We assessed the relation of creativity and unethical behaviour by manipulating the thinking style of participants (N = 450 adults) and measuring the impact of this manipulation on the prevalence of dishonest behaviour. Participants performed one of three inducer tasks: the alternative uses task to promote divergent thinking, the remote associates task to promote convergent thinking, or a simple classification task for rule-based thinking. Before and after this manipulation, participants conducted the mind game as a straightforward measure of dishonesty. Dishonest behaviour increased from before to after the intervention, but we found no credible evidence that this increase differed between induced mindsets. Exploratory analyses did not support any relation of trait creativity and dishonesty either. We conclude that the influence of creative thinking on unethical behaviour seems to be more ambiguous than assumed in earlier research or might be restricted to specific populations or contexts.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Ignatius2009,
  author    = {Ignatius, Anna},
  title     = {Ethik und Empirie},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-40789},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {Der erste Teil der Arbeit beinhaltet eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der transzendentalen Moralphilosophie Immanuel Kants, die als repr{\"a}sentativ f{\"u}r den Versuch verstanden wird, Moral auf rein rationalen resp. kognitiven Strukturen zu gr{\"u}nden. Dieser reinen Verstandesmoral wird im zweiten Teil der Arbeit ein menschliches Moral - bzw. Ethikverst{\"a}ndnis gegen{\"u}bergestellt, das auf empirischen Untersuchungen unterschiedlicher Fachrichtungen basiert. Dabei wird deutlich, dass menschliche Moralit{\"a}t kein abstraktes Konstrukt ist, sondern ein reales, beschreibbares Ph{\"a}nomen, das als solches zwar nicht von vorne herein angeboren ist, das in seiner Ausbildung und Entwicklung jedoch grundlegend mit der „Natur" des Menschen zusammenh{\"a}ngt.},
  subject      = {Praktische Ethik},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{Stemmler2011,
  author    = {Stemmler, Thomas},
  title     = {Just do it! Guilt as a moral intuition to cooperate - A parallel constraint satisfaction approach},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-74873},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Nach langer Dominanz rationaler Urteils- und Entscheidungsmodelle in der Moralpsychologie (z.B. Kohlberg, 1969) besteht seit einiger Zeit verst{\"a}rktes Interesse an intuitiven, emotionalen Einfl{\"u}ssen auf moralische Urteile und Entscheidungen (z.B. Greene, 2007; Haidt, 2001; Monin, Pizarro, \& Beer, 2007). Der Einfluss von Emotionen auf moralische Entscheidungen wird in der Literatur u.a. mittels heuristischer, non-kompensatorischer Informationsverarbeitung erkl{\"a}rt (z.B. Sinnott-Armstrong, Young, \& Cushman, 2010; Sunstein, 2005; Tobler, Kalis, \& Kalenscher, 2008). Hierbei wird jedoch der Prozess der Emotionsentstehung ignoriert. Appraisaltheorien postulieren, dass Emotionen durch die Inkoh{\"a}renz (oder Diskrepanz) von Verhaltensrepr{\"a}sentationen wie Zielen und Aktionen entstehen (Moors, 2009). Emotionsentstehung und (intuitives) Entscheiden kann in einem Modell vereint werden sobald man bei beiden Prozessen eine konnektionistische Struktur (z.B. Barnes \& Thagard, 1996) zugrunde legt. Die vorliegende Arbeit kontrastiert beide Perspektiven intuitiv-emotionalen Entscheidens im Hinblick auf Schuld und Kooperation.},
  subject      = {Kooperation},
  language  = {en}
}