Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189
B. Spears, P. Slee, L. Owens, B. Johnson
This qualitative study explores the human dimension of two subtypes of bullying in an Australian schooling context. Individuals’ knowledge, understanding, and experiences of covert (behind the scenes) and cyber (behind the screens) bullying were explored through stories of what has actually been occurring in and around their schools. Participants were adolescent students (n = 20), teachers (n = 10) and school counselors (n = 6) from a variety of schools across Adelaide, South Australia. They recounted stories about covert and cyberbullying from their social networks and schooling contexts, giving authentic “voice” to these behaviors. Each narrative was uploaded to a dedicated website, contributing to an online “storybook,” and providing information rich cases that enabled “issues of central importance” (Patton, 1987) to emerge. Narrative and thematic analyses revealed that covert and cyberbullying have much in common, but that cyberbullying in particular evoked strong negative feelings and emotions which ...
{"title":"Behind the Scenes and Screens Insights into the Human Dimension of Covert and Cyberbullying","authors":"B. Spears, P. Slee, L. Owens, B. Johnson","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189","url":null,"abstract":"This qualitative study explores the human dimension of two subtypes of bullying in an Australian schooling context. Individuals’ knowledge, understanding, and experiences of covert (behind the scenes) and cyber (behind the screens) bullying were explored through stories of what has actually been occurring in and around their schools. Participants were adolescent students (n = 20), teachers (n = 10) and school counselors (n = 6) from a variety of schools across Adelaide, South Australia. They recounted stories about covert and cyberbullying from their social networks and schooling contexts, giving authentic “voice” to these behaviors. Each narrative was uploaded to a dedicated website, contributing to an online “storybook,” and providing information rich cases that enabled “issues of central importance” (Patton, 1987) to emerge. Narrative and thematic analyses revealed that covert and cyberbullying have much in common, but that cyberbullying in particular evoked strong negative feelings and emotions which ...","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"133 1","pages":"189-196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72392357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.125
F. Bellezza
Multinomial processing-tree modeling has had a major impact on process-dissociation theory. Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt- Plunnecke (1995) added guessing parameters to the original model of Jacoby (1991) and created a class of process-dissociation models. Furthermore, Erfelder and Buchner (1998) formulated criterion values of the dual-process signal-detection model (Yonelinas, 1994) as multinomial parameters. Buchner, Erdfelder, Steffens, and Martensen (1997) suggested a new approach by proposing a multinomial source- monitoring model for process-dissociation data. Two experiments described here demonstrated that dual-process signal-detection theory must assume different levels of familiarity in inclusion and exclusion tests. Similarly, in some cases the source-monitoring model must assume different levels of recognition guessing in the two tests. Reasons are given for preferring the source-monitoring model.
多项处理树模型对过程分离理论产生了重大影响。Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt- Plunnecke(1995)在Jacoby(1991)的原始模型中加入了猜测参数，并创建了一类过程分离模型。此外，Erfelder和Buchner(1998)将双过程信号检测模型(Yonelinas, 1994)的判据值表述为多项参数。Buchner, Erdfelder, Steffens和Martensen(1997)提出了一种新的方法，提出了过程分离数据的多项源监测模型。这里描述的两个实验表明，双过程信号检测理论必须在包含和排除测试中假设不同程度的熟悉度。类似地，在某些情况下，源监视模型必须在两个测试中假定不同级别的识别猜测。给出了首选源监视模型的原因。
{"title":"Modeling Guessing The Influence of Multinomial Models on the Evolution of Process-Dissociation Theory","authors":"F. Bellezza","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.125","url":null,"abstract":"Multinomial processing-tree modeling has had a major impact on process-dissociation theory. Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt- Plunnecke (1995) added guessing parameters to the original model of Jacoby (1991) and created a class of process-dissociation models. Furthermore, Erfelder and Buchner (1998) formulated criterion values of the dual-process signal-detection model (Yonelinas, 1994) as multinomial parameters. Buchner, Erdfelder, Steffens, and Martensen (1997) suggested a new approach by proposing a multinomial source- monitoring model for process-dissociation data. Two experiments described here demonstrated that dual-process signal-detection theory must assume different levels of familiarity in inclusion and exclusion tests. Similarly, in some cases the source-monitoring model must assume different levels of recognition guessing in the two tests. Reasons are given for preferring the source-monitoring model.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"100 1","pages":"125-135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75657553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.49
Julian N. Marewski, H. Olsson
Rituals shape many aspects of our lives, and they are no less common in scientific research than elsewhere. One that figures prominently in hypothesis testing is the null ritual, the pitting of hypotheses against chance. Although known to be problematic, this practice is still widely used. One way to resist the lure of the null ritual is to increase the precision of theories by casting them as formal models. These can be tested against each other, instead of against chance, which in turn enables a researcher to decide between competing theories based on quantitative measures. This article gives an overview of the advantages of modeling, describes research that is based on it, outlines the difficulties associated with model testing, and summarizes some of the solutions for dealing with these difficulties. Pointers to resources for teaching modeling in university classes are provided.
{"title":"Beyond the null ritual : Formal modeling of psychological processes","authors":"Julian N. Marewski, H. Olsson","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.49","url":null,"abstract":"Rituals shape many aspects of our lives, and they are no less common in scientific research than elsewhere. One that figures prominently in hypothesis testing is the null ritual, the pitting of hypotheses against chance. Although known to be problematic, this practice is still widely used. One way to resist the lure of the null ritual is to increase the precision of theories by casting them as formal models. These can be tested against each other, instead of against chance, which in turn enables a researcher to decide between competing theories based on quantitative measures. This article gives an overview of the advantages of modeling, describes research that is based on it, outlines the difficulties associated with model testing, and summarizes some of the solutions for dealing with these difficulties. Pointers to resources for teaching modeling in university classes are provided.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"49-60"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75205865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.79
Susanne Guski-Leinwand
The scientific approach of “Volkerpsychologie” (roughly translated in English as “ethnic psychology”) as founded by Lazarus and Steinthal, and later by Wilhelm Wundt, was criticized early on by conservative protagonists in Germany, such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and others. This article looks into how their criticism influenced and changed Volkerpsychologie in its two facets: Volkerpsychologie as a theoretical approach and as an “applied approach.” Furthermore, the consequences of this double concept and the change to Volkerpsychologie regarding its role and the meaning for political objectives are discussed. In contrast to Wundt’s theoretical Volkerpsychologie, which is based on the thesis that peoples’ development originally started with similar behaviors, the so-called applied or “differentielle Volkerpsychologie” implied that people are different, that they are devaluated, selected, and eventually separated as races from one another. Changing psychology by adding a more biological dimension and a...
{"title":"Becoming a Science","authors":"Susanne Guski-Leinwand","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.79","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.79","url":null,"abstract":"The scientific approach of “Volkerpsychologie” (roughly translated in English as “ethnic psychology”) as founded by Lazarus and Steinthal, and later by Wilhelm Wundt, was criticized early on by conservative protagonists in Germany, such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and others. This article looks into how their criticism influenced and changed Volkerpsychologie in its two facets: Volkerpsychologie as a theoretical approach and as an “applied approach.” Furthermore, the consequences of this double concept and the change to Volkerpsychologie regarding its role and the meaning for political objectives are discussed. In contrast to Wundt’s theoretical Volkerpsychologie, which is based on the thesis that peoples’ development originally started with similar behaviors, the so-called applied or “differentielle Volkerpsychologie” implied that people are different, that they are devaluated, selected, and eventually separated as races from one another. Changing psychology by adding a more biological dimension and a...","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"7 1","pages":"79-84"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73112232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.103
A. Eye
{"title":"Call for Papers: “Person-Oriented Research Methods”","authors":"A. Eye","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.103","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"9 1","pages":"103-103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81949700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.149
W. Batchelder, Xiangen Hu, Jared B. Smith
This paper shows how to develop new multinomial processing tree (MPT) models for discrete choice, and in particular binary choice. First it reviews the history of discrete choice with special attention to Duncan Luce’s book Individual Choice Behavior. Luce’s choice axiom leads to the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) paired-comparison model which is the basis of logit models of discrete choice used throughout the social and behavioral sciences. It is shown that a reparameterization of the BTL model is represented by choice probabilities generated from a finite state Markov chain, and this representation is closely related to the rooted tree structure of MPT models. New MPT models of binary choice can be obtained by placing restrictions on this representation of the BTL model. Several of these new MPT models for paired comparisons are described, compared to the BTL model, and applied to data from a replicated round-robin data structure.
{"title":"Multinomial Processing Tree Models for Discrete Choice","authors":"W. Batchelder, Xiangen Hu, Jared B. Smith","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.149","url":null,"abstract":"This paper shows how to develop new multinomial processing tree (MPT) models for discrete choice, and in particular binary choice. First it reviews the history of discrete choice with special attention to Duncan Luce’s book Individual Choice Behavior. Luce’s choice axiom leads to the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) paired-comparison model which is the basis of logit models of discrete choice used throughout the social and behavioral sciences. It is shown that a reparameterization of the BTL model is represented by choice probabilities generated from a finite state Markov chain, and this representation is closely related to the rooted tree structure of MPT models. New MPT models of binary choice can be obtained by placing restrictions on this representation of the BTL model. Several of these new MPT models for paired comparisons are described, compared to the BTL model, and applied to data from a replicated round-robin data structure.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"2 1","pages":"149-158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87638378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38
Ernest Kwan, Irene R. R. Lu, M. Friendly
DOI 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38 Abstract. In the debate over null hypothesis significance testing, Paul Meehl strongly advocated appraising theories through the generation and evaluation of precise predictions (e.g., Meehl, 1978). The study of personality structure through the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992) is an important area of research where one encounters many precise predictions. Extant methods of assessing such predictions, however, do not allow researchers to examine the outcome of the predictions in great detail. That is, it may be difficult to determine how estimates fail to match predicted values. As Meehl argued, one must examine how a theory fails to predict in order to refine and improve the theory. To promote better theory appraisal in FFM research, we present a powerful new tool, called a tableplot (Kwan, 2008a), that can summarize and clarify factor-analytic results. Specifically, we illustrate how the tableplot enables detailed appraisal of precise predictions in the FFM.
DOI 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38摘要。在关于零假设显著性检验的争论中，Paul Meehl强烈主张通过生成和评估精确的预测来评价理论(例如，Meehl, 1978)。运用五因素模型研究人格结构;麦克雷和约翰，1992)是一个重要的研究领域，在那里人们会遇到许多精确的预测。然而，评估这种预测的现有方法不允许研究人员非常详细地检查预测的结果。也就是说，很难确定估计值是如何与预测值不匹配的。正如Meehl所主张的那样，为了完善和改进理论，人们必须研究一个理论是如何无法预测的。为了促进FFM研究中更好的理论评估，我们提出了一个强大的新工具，称为表格图(Kwan, 2008a)，它可以总结和澄清因素分析结果。具体来说，我们说明了表格图如何能够对FFM中的精确预测进行详细评估。
{"title":"Tableplot: A New Tool for Assessing Precise Predictions","authors":"Ernest Kwan, Irene R. R. Lu, M. Friendly","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38","url":null,"abstract":"DOI 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.38 Abstract. In the debate over null hypothesis significance testing, Paul Meehl strongly advocated appraising theories through the generation and evaluation of precise predictions (e.g., Meehl, 1978). The study of personality structure through the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992) is an important area of research where one encounters many precise predictions. Extant methods of assessing such predictions, however, do not allow researchers to examine the outcome of the predictions in great detail. That is, it may be difficult to determine how estimates fail to match predicted values. As Meehl argued, one must examine how a theory fails to predict in order to refine and improve the theory. To promote better theory appraisal in FFM research, we present a powerful new tool, called a tableplot (Kwan, 2008a), that can summarize and clarify factor-analytic results. Specifically, we illustrate how the tableplot enables detailed appraisal of precise predictions in the FFM.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"24 1","pages":"38-48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84989617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-11-19DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.218
E. Traut-Mattausch, E. Jonas, Michael Förg, D. Frey, F. Heinemann
Necessary changes through political reforms meant to solve current problems can be justified in different ways. Politicians can focus on the communication of increased limitations resulting from the changes (limitation justification) or they can communicate improvements of the institutional setting, e.g., with respect to more equitable rules (improvement justification). Based on reactance theory we argued that a limitation justification threatens one’s freedoms, and, therefore, leads to direct and indirect reactance effects compared to an improvement justification. Study 1 showed that the participants reacted with more negative attitudes when the changes were justified through limitations compared to improvements. This difference was mediated by the experience of reactance. Study 2 revealed that a limitation justification had a negative impact on financial honesty through a lower identification with one’s country. The implications of our results for the communication of political reforms are discussed.
{"title":"How Should Politicians Justify Reforms to Avoid Psychological Reactance, Negative Attitudes, and Financial Dishonesty?","authors":"E. Traut-Mattausch, E. Jonas, Michael Förg, D. Frey, F. Heinemann","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.218","url":null,"abstract":"Necessary changes through political reforms meant to solve current problems can be justified in different ways. Politicians can focus on the communication of increased limitations resulting from the changes (limitation justification) or they can communicate improvements of the institutional setting, e.g., with respect to more equitable rules (improvement justification). Based on reactance theory we argued that a limitation justification threatens one’s freedoms, and, therefore, leads to direct and indirect reactance effects compared to an improvement justification. Study 1 showed that the participants reacted with more negative attitudes when the changes were justified through limitations compared to improvements. This difference was mediated by the experience of reactance. Study 2 revealed that a limitation justification had a negative impact on financial honesty through a lower identification with one’s country. The implications of our results for the communication of political reforms are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"19 1","pages":"218-225"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2008-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86862160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-11-19DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.195
E. Traut-Mattausch, D. Frey, C. Peus
The conventional economic paradigm was based on assumptions of stable preferences, perfect rationality, and tight market equilibrium (Kirchgassner, 1991). Within this tradition of homo economicus, people are seen as reliable pursuers of self-interest. In many areas of economic behavior this is true: People compare prices when they decide what product to buy, decide carefully before making investment decisions, and hire experts to get good advice (Loewenstein & Haisley, in press). However, people do not always behave according to the predictions of classical economic models. Examples described in the literature are paradoxes and anomalies (e.g., Kahnemann & Tversky, 1979) that question the presumed rationality of the human decision-making process. Therefore, Raaij (1999) concluded “that people are not perfect and rational, as is assumed in most economic models” (p. 271). For a long time, economics neglected the relevance of psychological variables for the explanation and prediction of economic behavior (Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004). However, over the last 10 years more and more researchers have highlighted the importance of psychological theories for predicting economic behavior (e.g., Fehr & Falk, 2002; Lewin, 1998; Loewenstein & Haisley, in press; Rabin, 1998; Tirole, 2002). By demonstrating how human decisions can systematically deviate from those predicted by standard economic theories, behavioral economists and economic psychologists have laid the foundation for a new field of research (Raaij, 1999). Moreover, behavioral economists and economic psychologists have provided evidence that economic behavior depends critically on psychological, institutional, cultural, and even biological factors (for an overview see Camerer, Loewenstein, & Rabin, 2004). The purpose of this issue is to highlight recent research and developments in behavioral economics and economic psychology. Among the psychological factors discussed as having an impact on human decision-making in this issue are public recognition (Frey & Neckermann), norms, perceptions of fairness, and motivation to cooperate (Hofmann, Hoelzl, & Kirchler), brand image (Fichter & Jonas), the way changes are justified (Traut-Mattaussch, Jonas, Forg, Frey, & Heinemann), as well as choice and accountability (Wolf & Moser). Overall, this special issue contains six articles. The first article “Awards: A View from Psychological Economics” by Bruno S. Frey and Susanne Neckermann (2008) focuses on a neglected issue in the field of behavioral economics and economic psychology: awards and their influence on behavior. The authors highlight the differences between awards and monetary compensation for enhancing performance and discuss how awards are distributed in many different fields of social life (e.g., civil and military service, arts, research, education, social welfare, sports, business, or politics). Moreover, Frey and Neckermann’s cross-cultural analysis highlights the fact that the frequency with whi
{"title":"The Psychology of Homo Economicus","authors":"E. Traut-Mattausch, D. Frey, C. Peus","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.195","url":null,"abstract":"The conventional economic paradigm was based on assumptions of stable preferences, perfect rationality, and tight market equilibrium (Kirchgassner, 1991). Within this tradition of homo economicus, people are seen as reliable pursuers of self-interest. In many areas of economic behavior this is true: People compare prices when they decide what product to buy, decide carefully before making investment decisions, and hire experts to get good advice (Loewenstein & Haisley, in press). However, people do not always behave according to the predictions of classical economic models. Examples described in the literature are paradoxes and anomalies (e.g., Kahnemann & Tversky, 1979) that question the presumed rationality of the human decision-making process. Therefore, Raaij (1999) concluded “that people are not perfect and rational, as is assumed in most economic models” (p. 271). For a long time, economics neglected the relevance of psychological variables for the explanation and prediction of economic behavior (Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004). However, over the last 10 years more and more researchers have highlighted the importance of psychological theories for predicting economic behavior (e.g., Fehr & Falk, 2002; Lewin, 1998; Loewenstein & Haisley, in press; Rabin, 1998; Tirole, 2002). By demonstrating how human decisions can systematically deviate from those predicted by standard economic theories, behavioral economists and economic psychologists have laid the foundation for a new field of research (Raaij, 1999). Moreover, behavioral economists and economic psychologists have provided evidence that economic behavior depends critically on psychological, institutional, cultural, and even biological factors (for an overview see Camerer, Loewenstein, & Rabin, 2004). The purpose of this issue is to highlight recent research and developments in behavioral economics and economic psychology. Among the psychological factors discussed as having an impact on human decision-making in this issue are public recognition (Frey & Neckermann), norms, perceptions of fairness, and motivation to cooperate (Hofmann, Hoelzl, & Kirchler), brand image (Fichter & Jonas), the way changes are justified (Traut-Mattaussch, Jonas, Forg, Frey, & Heinemann), as well as choice and accountability (Wolf & Moser). Overall, this special issue contains six articles. The first article “Awards: A View from Psychological Economics” by Bruno S. Frey and Susanne Neckermann (2008) focuses on a neglected issue in the field of behavioral economics and economic psychology: awards and their influence on behavior. The authors highlight the differences between awards and monetary compensation for enhancing performance and discuss how awards are distributed in many different fields of social life (e.g., civil and military service, arts, research, education, social welfare, sports, business, or politics). Moreover, Frey and Neckermann’s cross-cultural analysis highlights the fact that the frequency with whi","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"16 21","pages":"195-197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2008-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.195","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72415754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：