College Students’ Perceptions of Peers Who Cheat1

Two studies investigated the efficacy of 3 theoretical models in explaining college students judgments of peers who cheat and of accomplices who assist cheaters. The value pluralism model predicted that accomplices who acted for money would be judged more harshly than those who acted from friendship; the attributional model predicted that cheaters whose actions were caused by internal controllable factors would be judged more harshly than those who actions were caused by external uncontrollable factors, and the relative preference model predicted that students who saw themselves as more likely to act as the cheater and accomplice did would make less harsh judgments. Overall, the results provided the best support for the relative preference model.     

Emotional expression modulates perceived gaze direction

Gaze perception is an important social skill, as it portrays information about what another person is attending to. Gaze direction has been shown to affect interpretation of emotional expression. Here the authors investigate whether the emotional facial expression has a reciprocal influence on interpretation of gaze direction. In a forced-choice yes-no task, participants were asked to judge whether three faces expressing different emotions (anger, fear, happiness, and neutral) in different viewing angles were looking at them or not. Happy faces were more likely to be judged as looking at the observer than were angry, fearful, or neutral faces. Angry faces were more often judged as looking at the observer than were fearful and neutral expressions. These findings are discussed on the background of approach and avoidance orientation of emotions and of the self-referential positivity bias.     

In these pages . . .

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis -     

That Could Be Me (or Not): Senseless Violence and the Role of Deservingness,Victim Ethnicity,Person Identification,and Position Identification1

Building on just‐world theory, the current study examined variables contributing to the labeling of violent incidents as senseless. In a 2 × 2 (Blame Opportunities x Victim Ethnicity) design, Dutch participants (N= 78) were provided with a written hypothetical situation depicting a violent incident. Consistent with predictions, the violence was evaluated to be less deserved and more senseless (and the desired penalty for the offender was stronger) when participants had no opportunity to blame the victim than when they did have an opportunity to blame the victim. Likewise, an act of violence committed against a victim belonging to an ethnic minority (allochthonous victim) was perceived to be more deserved and less senseless (and the desired penalty for the offender was smaller) than a similar violent act directed against a native (autochthonous) victim. Findings designate that the just‐world theory offers a promising approach to investigate factors determining the labeling of violent incidents as senseless by outside, uninvolved observers.