Honor Crimes in the United States and Offenders’ Neutralization Techniques

Honor crimes are violent acts that are experienced among different religions and ethnicities. This type of offense can be justified, either before or after the crime, by the offender’s perceived need to protect honor-based values. This study used Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory to explain the offender’s justification of honor crimes. We used data from the United States Extremist Crime Database, which has incident, victim, and perpetrator level indicators for the population of honor crimes in the United States (N = 16). Using open source search files for the cases, neutralizations and justifications provided by the offenders are presented.     

How ‘other people matter’ in a classroom-based strengths intervention: Exploring interpersonal strategies and classroom outcomes

Interventions that identify and develop character strengths have been shown to benefit well-being, academic engagement and achievement. Strengths research within positive psychology has focused primarily on individual outcomes with less attention on group or relationships effects. This study (N?=?193) examined the effect of a classroom-based strengths intervention on class cohesion and friction, relatedness, engagement, well-being and strengths use. A six-session programme was trialled with 9–12-year-old students. Students learned to recognise strengths and practised strengths-related goal setting. At three-months post-test, multi-level modelling indicated that intervention group participants scored significantly higher on class cohesion and relatedness need satisfaction, and lower on class friction than the non-randomised control group. Programme participants also reported higher levels of positive affect, classroom engagement, autonomy need satisfaction and strengths use. School-based strengths interventions may influence individual perceptions of class climate, engagement and student relatedness in addition to individual well-being.     

A Historical Perspective on the Future of Behavior Science

Like all natural sciences, behavior science has much to offer toward an understanding of the world. The extent to which the promise of behavior science is realized, though, depends upon the extent to which we keep what we know before us. This paper considers fundamental concepts in behavior science, including the concepts of behavior, stimulation, setting conditions, and language. In considering these concepts, we revisit comments from B. F. Skinner and J. R. Kantor and also consider some areas of behavior analytic research and the implications they have for reconsidering long-held assumptions about the analysis of behavior. We hope that, in considering our foundations, the vitality and strength of the discipline might be enhanced, our impact on science improved, and our future secured.     

The career impact of winning an external work-related award

There is an abundance of work-related external awards in the business and corporate sectors. This study examines the impact of awards given to individuals in the business sector. Careers and signalling theory were used to initiate research in this domain with 32 interviews with winners of national work-related awards. The majority of winners were either nominated for the awards by others or encouraged to nominate by their managers, which may reflect an organisational, rather than individual, signal for distinction. Results demonstrated that all winners valued the recognition they received from their award win but in an unexpected finding, no significant career trajectory changes occurred. Award winners used their award as a signal of their excellence to distinguish themselves from others. The award gave them confidence and credibility. There was no relationship between winning an award and career success measures such as promotions or salary increases. Counterintuitive negative impacts identified by award winners are discussed.     

Emergent Power Hierarchies and Group Performance

In newly formed groups, informal hierarchies emerge automatically and readily. In this study, we argue that emergent group hierarchies enhance group performance (Hypothesis 1) and we assume that the more the power hierarchy within a group corresponds to the task‐competence differences of the individual group members, the better the group performs (Hypothesis 2). Twelve three‐person groups and 28 four‐person groups were investigated while solving the Winter Survival Task. Results show that emerging power hierarchies positively impact group performance but the alignment between task‐competence and power hierarchy did not affect group performance. Thus, emergent power hierarchies are beneficial for group performance and although they were on average created around individual group members' competence, this correspondence was not a prerequisite for better group performance.