Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness

Experimental exclusion manipulations may induce exclusion in a way that participants perceive as unfair. Groups often use exclusion punitively to correct inappropriate behavior, however, which may lead to perceptions that it is potentially justified or fair. The current studies examined if individuals' perceptions of fairness with respect to an exclusion experience moderated their reactions. Participants wrote about or imagined a time in which they were excluded after they did something wrong (fair exclusion) or excluded even though they did nothing wrong (unfair exclusion) or about a mundane experience unrelated to exclusion (control). Compared with fair exclusion, unfair exclusion resulted in significantly weaker efficacy needs satisfaction (Studies 1, 2, and 4), greater antisocial intent (Study 3), and greater sensitivity to signs of interpersonal acceptance and rejection in a visual search task (Study 4). These results suggest that it is important to consider the role of perceived fairness in shaping responses to exclusion.     

Differences Between the Sexes Among Protestant Christian Middle School Students and their Attitudes Toward Science,Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)

Research focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education among conservative Protestant Christian school students is scarce. Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory is examined as it pertains to religion as a group identifier. The STEM Semantic Survey was completed by 157 middle school students attending six different private Christian schools in Michigan. A MANOVA analysis found a significant difference between male and female students. Post hoc analysis revealed that females had less favorable views of engineering and technology than did their male counterparts. The researchers concluded that attitudes toward STEM among Protestant students are similar to those found in secular schools.     

The Visual Guide to Morality: Vision as an Integrative Analogy for Moral Experience,Variability and Mechanism

Analogies help organize, communicate and reveal scientific phenomena. Vision may be the best analogy for understanding moral judgment. Although moral psychology has long noted similarities between seeing and judging, we systematically review the “morality is like vision” analogy through three elements: experience, variability and mechanism. Both vision and morality are experienced as automatic, durable and objective. However, despite feelings of objectivity, both vision and morality show substantial variability across biology, culture and situation. The paradox of objective experience and cultural subjectivity is best understood through constructionism, as both vision and morality involve the flexible combination of more basic ingredients. Specifically, both vision and morality involve a mechanism that demonstrates Gestalt, combination and coherence. The “morality is like vision” analogy not only provides intuitive organization and compelling communication for moral psychology but also speaks to debates in the field, such as intuition versus reason, pluralism versus universalism and modularity versus constructionism.