{"title":"How Does Well-Being in School Matter?","authors":"T. Hascher, Heta Tuominen, K. Salmela‐Aro","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000494","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121607928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the Relationship Between Student Well-Being and Academic Achievement","authors":"J. Morinaj, T. Hascher","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000499","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Student well-being is considered as both an enabling condition for positive learning outcomes and an essential educational outcome itself. Previous studies have investigated the relationship between student well-being and academic achievement cross-sectionally, leaving unclear the direction of causality. Employing 3 waves of data spaced 1 year apart, this longitudinal study used a random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) to account for between-person effects and segregate within-person effects between positive and negative dimensions of student well-being and academic achievement. Participants were 404 secondary school students in Switzerland in grades 7–9. The RI-CLPMs suggested that over 1-year time intervals students’ academic achievement may positively influence positive dimensions of student well-being (i.e., positive attitudes toward school, enjoyment in school, positive academic self-concept) within secondary school students. Negative dimensions of student well-being (i.e., worries in school, physical complaints, and social problems) were not associated with academic achievement.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127324798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bad Is Stronger Than Good","authors":"P. Harms","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000496","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Organizational scholars increasingly realize the importance of a dark personality in the workplace. Although a great deal has been learned in terms of the utility of dark personality for the prediction of workplace outcomes, the field has yet to consolidate in terms of which models and measures best reflect the nature of dark personality traits. To facilitate this discussion, the present review examines and evaluates both established and emergent models and measures of dark personality. Further, to inform future research, it also summarizes evidence concerning methodological issues that have been shown to impact levels of dark traits or to moderate their relationships with work outcomes. Finally, the paper considers the implications of widespread practices in the field of dark personality and makes recommendations for future theorizing, research practices, and implementation.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127828329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mathias Twardawski, M. Gollwitzer, S. Pohl, M. Bošnjak
{"title":"What Drives Second- and Third-Party Punishment?","authors":"Mathias Twardawski, M. Gollwitzer, S. Pohl, M. Bošnjak","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000454","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000454","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125829679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Importance of Unfair Intentions and Outcome Inequality for Punishment by Third Parties and Victims","authors":"Stefanie Hechler, T. Kessler","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000458","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Retributive theories predominantly focus on third party’s motives for punishment, which are rather affected by the offender’s malicious intentions than the actual outcome of the offense. However, victims experience an offense from a different perspective. The value/status approach argues that an offense has two facets that produce different threats: the intentional violation of values and status imbalance between offender and victims. We suggested that third parties and victims punish unfair intentions, whereas victims also punish because of the outcome inequality. In the present study, we orthogonally crossed the factors offender’s intention with the actual outcome and perspective of punisher (third-party versus victim). Results show that victims punish harsher than third parties. However, there are no qualitative differences of third-party punishment and punishment by victims. Rather, both punish malicious intentions and outcome inequality. We discuss how the findings relate to retributivism and other psychological theories of punishment.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128912705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects","authors":"Kyriaki Fousiani, Jan‐Willem van Prooijen","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. This study aimed to replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, according to which people’s punitive sentiments are predominantly driven by retributive concerns. Contrary to prior research that focuses on how people punish offenders, this study investigated how people punish individuals suspected of immoralities. Moreover, we manipulated a suspect’s power level (high/low/undefined) and stated contrasting hypotheses (the “power corrupts” approach vs. the “power leniency” approach) regarding the impact of power on punishment motives. Finally, we investigated the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in these effects. The results replicated the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and revealed the robustness of this effect. Moreover, in line with the “power corrupts” approach, we found that the role of utilitarian (but not retributive or restorative) motives is stronger in the punishment of powerful suspects as opposed to powerless ones. Unexpectedly, neither guilt likelihood nor recidivism of a suspect mediated the effects of power on punishment motives.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"152 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123190544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Call for Papers: “Psychological Perspectives on Science Communication”","authors":"","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000493","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114302341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Who May Punish How?","authors":"Sophie Strauß, R. Bondü","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000463","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. According to the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, individuals favor retributivist (getting even) over consequentialist (prevention of norm transgressions) motives when asked to rate the appropriateness of punishment responses representing these motives. This hypothesis has rarely been tested in children; restorative motives (norm clarification, settlement) and potentially influencing variables have rarely been considered. We had 170 elementary school children ( M = 9.26, SD = 1.01) rate the appropriateness of six punishment responses by themselves and teachers for two types of norm transgression as well as their justice sensitivity. Children rated punishment responses thought to represent restorative motives as most appropriate, followed by special preventive and other retributive motives, revenge, general preventive motives, and doing nothing for both themselves and their teachers. Transgression type did not influence appropriateness ratings. Justice sensitivity was related to a stronger tendency to punish. Findings favor intuitive pacifism over intuitive retributivism, indicate children’s preference for target-specific, communicative punishment, and show only small influences by other variables.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121561679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Punitive Reactions to Tax Evasion in Italy","authors":"Valeria De Cristofaro, Mauro Giacomantonio","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000456","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The present research investigates whether and how intentionality of (i.e., a retribution-related factor) and the difficulty to detect (i.e., a utilitarianism-related factor) tax evasion may influence people’s punitive reactions depending on individual differences in economic system justification. Results of a moderation analysis revealed (a) a positive effect of intentionality, but not difficult to detect, on punitiveness; (b) a negative effect of economic system justification on punitiveness; (c) an interactive effect between intentionality and economic system justification, suggesting that intentionality predicts punitive reactions towards tax evaders only when economic system justification is low. These results qualify the notion that people are more concerned about retribution than about utilitarianism, thereby providing support for the intuitive retributivism hypothesis. Also, they suggest that economic system justification plays a role in demotivating punishment toward tax evaders, especially in conjunction with retribution.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134448389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Laila Nockur, Rebekka Kesberg, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller
{"title":"Why Do We Punish?","authors":"Laila Nockur, Rebekka Kesberg, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000457","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. We investigated whether individuals’ punishment behavior aims at compensating for inflicted harm (i.e., retribution) or at deterring the offender from committing the offense again (i.e., deterrence) and whether punishment motives depend on the punishment system. Participants ( N = 149) assigned punishment for selfish decisions in a group resource allocation task under three conditions: Open punishment (the allocator is informed about the punishment, allowing for retribution and deterrence); hidden punishment (the allocator is not informed about the punishment, precluding deterrence); and unintentional offense (decision is made by the computer not the allocator, precluding retribution and deterrence). In line with retribution motives, participants assigned more punishment under hidden punishment compared to unintentional offense and open punishment. We found these differences in punishment between punishment conditions only under centralized punishment (i.e., punishment can only be executed by one group member), but not under decentralized punishment (i.e., each group member can punish).","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"115 19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126375092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
