RESUMEN
How do people judge responsibility in collaborative tasks? Past work has proposed a number of metrics that people may use to attribute blame and credit to others, such as effort, competence, and force. Some theories consider only the actual effort or force (individuals are more responsible if they put forth more effort or force), whereas others consider counterfactuals (individuals are more responsible if some alternative behavior on their or their collaborator's part could have altered the outcome). Across four experiments (N=717), we found that participants' judgments are best described by a model that considers both actual and counterfactual effort. This finding generalized to an independent validation data set (N=99). Our results thus support a dual-factor theory of responsibility attribution in collaborative tasks.
RESUMEN
Criterion-referenced testing is usually applied to the assessment of achievement. In this article, we suggest how it can also be applied to the assessment of adaptive intelligence, that is, intelligence as adaptation to the environment. In the era of the Anthropocene, we argue that adaptive intelligence is what is most important not only for individual success, but also for success in terms of preservation of the world as we know it. We define criterion-referenced testing and compare it to norm-referenced testing. We then discuss two kinds of scoring of criterion-referenced testing, namely, with respect to external criteria and with respect to internal (theory-based) criteria. We then discuss past research on intelligence that could be viewed as criterion-referenced. Finally, we suggest how criterion-referencing could be applied to the assessment of adaptive intelligence.