Ethical Situations and Their Effects on Judgments of Punishment

We compared the punitiveness of two groups following a manipulation in which participants were either able to cheat on a simple number-matching task, by taking more money then they rightfully earned, or prevented from doing so on the same task. After completing the task, participants read a number of small vignettes of politicians who had acted questionably, and then were asked to rate the scenarios on both how wrong the behavior was and how much punishment it deserved. Participants given the opportunity to cheat with impunity were significantly less punitive when judging questionable behavior on the part of elected officials.     

Real men are made,not born! Incidental exposure to energy drinks may promote men's tolerance of physical pain

The energy drink market has grown exponentially since the debut of Red Bull. Advertising of energy drinks tends to reinforce an emphasis on masculine identification. However, no previous study has addressed the symbolic effect of energy drinks on pain tolerance, that is, a particular masculine characteristic. We conducted a priming‐based experiment to show that energy drink primes elevated men's pain tolerance. Induced conformity to masculinity norms mediated the priming effect of energy drinks on pain tolerance. These findings suggest that mere reminders of masculinity‐related products can lead men to behave accordingly in seemingly irrelevant domains (i.e., pain tolerance). Besides distraction and placebo treatment, the connection between a symbolic masculinity prime and greater tolerance of pain may shed lights on an alternative route for pain control.     

The power of regression to the mean: A social norm study revisited

This research follows up on a study by Schultz et al. ( 2007 ), in which the effect of a social norm intervention on energy consumption was examined. The present studies included control groups to examine whether social norm effects would persist beyond regression to the mean. Both studies had a 2 (baseline consumption: below mean versus above mean) × 2 (message condition: no‐message control versus norm message) design . Based on baseline fruit ( Study 1 ) or unhealthy snack ( Study 2 ) consumption, students were classified as above mean or below mean for consumption. One week later, half of the students in the above‐mean and below‐mean groups received normative feedback; control groups did not. Neither study showed an effect of norm messages on behavior relative to control, providing evidence for regression to the mean as an alternative explanation. Findings highlight the importance of control groups to distinguish social norm intervention effects from mere regression to the mean.     

Aggression Norms in the Classroom Social Network: Contexts of Aggressive Behavior and Social Preference in Middle Childhood

In a cross‐sectional sample of African‐American 2nd–4th grade students (N = 681), we examine the moderating effects of classroom overt and relational aggression norms on peers’ social acceptance of classmates who exhibit overt and relational aggression in urban schools. Extending theory and research on classroom norms, we integrate social network data to adjust aggression norms based on children’s direct and indirect connections in the classroom. Results of multilevel models indicate that network‐based classroom aggression norms moderated relations between children’s aggressive behavior and their social preference. Specifically, children benefited socially when their form of aggressive behavior fit with what was normative in the classroom social context. The moderating effect of classroom aggression norms was stronger for the association between overt aggression and social preference than relational aggression and social preference. Relationally aggressive youth were socially preferred by peers regardless of the classroom norm, although this positive association was magnified in classrooms with higher levels of relational aggression. Future research focused on aggression norms within classroom social networks are discussed and implications for school prevention efforts are considered.     

守范?失范?——作为参照点的社会规范对决策行为的影响

作为参照点的社会规范指个体为实现群体目标保持活动一致性所建立起来的、视为决策与判断标准的规范。社会规范研究经历了从完全理性到有限理性的转变过程。其对决策行为影响的解释机制包括预期理论、后悔理论、"齐当别"抉择模型、程数说和三参照点理论等,能较好解释避税、见死不救与医患冲突等现象。今后研究注意结合社会认知角度,实现研究思想与范式的转变,侧重探索多重参照点、群体决策机制,丰富跨文化研究等,为转型期的守范与失范行为提供科学的解释。     

Assertion,Complexity, and Sincerity

The target of this paper is the ‘simple’ knowledge account of assertion, according to which assertion is constituted by a single epistemic rule of the form ‘One must: assert p only if one knows p’ (where p is a proposition). My aim is to argue that those who are attracted to a knowledge account of assertion should prefer what I call the ‘complex’ knowledge account, according to which assertion is constituted by a system of rules all of which are, taken together, constitutive of assertion. One of those rules—which, following John Searle, I call the ‘preparatory condition’—is of the form ‘One must: assert p only if one knows p.’ All else being equal, simple accounts are preferable to complex accounts. I argue in this paper that all else isn't equal. While the simple knowledge account provides an elegant explanation of certain data, it is hard to see how to integrate the simple knowledge account into a more general theory of illocutionary acts. Because the complex knowledge account avoids this objection while explaining the same data as the simple knowledge account does, I conclude that the complex knowledge account is superior to the simple knowledge account.     

Cohen on ‘Epistemic’

Stewart Cohen offers a critique of much contemporary epistemology. Epistemologies use the term ‘epistemic’ in order to specify the issues they investigate and about which they disagree. Cohen sees widespread confusion about these issues. The problem, he argues, is that ‘epistemic’ is functioning as an inadequately defined technical term. I will argue, rather, that the troubles come more from non-technical vocabulary, in particular with ‘justification’ and ‘ought’, and generally from the difficulty of explaining normativity. Overall, the message of this paper is that normativity is what’s hard to understand, not the term ‘epistemic.’