Do economics students behave more selfishly than other students? Experimental game studies suggest so. This article investigates whether economics students' more selfish behavior is attributable to them being less concerned with fairness, having a different notion of fairness, or being more skeptical about other players' behavior. Students from various disciplines played a third-party punishment game and commented on the reasons for their choices. Economics students were about equally likely to mention fairness in their comments and had a similar notion of what was fair in the game; however, they expected lower offers, made lower offers, and were less likely to pay to veto low offers. The economics students' lower expectations mediated their decisions, suggesting that they behaved more selfishly because they expected others to make more selfish decisions.
Decomposing self-regulation and self-control: the volitional components inventory / Julius Kuhl and Arno Fuhrmann -- Developmental regulation in adulthood: selection and compensation via primary and secondary control / Jutta Heckhausen and Richard Schulz -- Development of regulatory focus: promotion and prevention as ways of living / E. Tory Higgins and Israela Silberman -- Commentary: human psychological needs and the issues of volition, control, and outcome focus / Richard M. Ryan -- Social motivation and perceived responsibility in others: attributions and behavior of African American boys labeled as aggressive / Sandra Graham -- The multidimensional nature of control: implications for the development of sex differences in self-evaluation / Eva M. Pomerantz and Diane N. Ruble -- The functional regulation of adolescent dating relationships and sexual behavior: an interaction of goals, strategies, and situations / Nancy Cantor and Catherine A. Sanderson -- Commentary: strategies for studying social influences on motivation / Ellen A. Skinner -- Ruminative coping with depression / Susan Nolen-Hoeksema -- The development of early self-conceptions: their relevance for motivational processes / Carol S. Dweck -- Sociocultural influences on the development of children's action-control beliefs / Todd D. Little -- Commentary: self-regulation, motivation, and developmental psychopathology / John R. Weisz -- A life-span approach to social motivation / Laura L. Carstensen -- Maintaining self-integrity and efficacy through adulthood and later life: the adaptive functions of assimilative persistence and accommodative flexibility / Jochen Brandtst(c)Þdter, Klaus Rothermund, and Ulrich Schmitz / The willfull pursuit of identity / Peter M. Gollwitzer and Oliver Kirchhof / Commentary: motivation and self-regulation in adult development / Richard Schulz
Diese Dissertation nimmt am Beispiel des Max-Planck-Instituts für Bildungsforschung (MPIB) eine systemtheoretische Betrachtung der Folgen von Politikberatung für den Wissenschaftsbetrieb vor. In seiner Arbeit stand das MPIB in einem Dreiecksverhältnis zur Politik einerseits und zur Max-Planck-Gesellschaft andererseits. Alle drei Seiten hatten ihre eigenen Funktionslogiken und Zielvorstellungen, die ihre gegenseitigen Austauschbeziehungen formten und bedingten und in ihren Wechselwirkungen mithilfe einer systemtheoretischen Perspektive analysiert werden. Dabei wurde der Zeitraum zwischen 1962 und etwa 1989 betrachtet. Es wurden zwei unterschiedliche Quellenzugänge gewählt: Erstens wurden etwa 60 Leitfadengespräche mit ehemaligen oder aktuellen Institutsangehörigen sowieso weiteren Zeitzeugen geführt. Zweitens wurden die im Zusammenhang mit dem MPIB vorhandenen Aktenbestände der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Publikationen des Instituts und seiner Angehörigen sowie weitere Institutsbestände eingesehen und analysiert. Es ließ sich nachweisen, dass die zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten am Institut vorherrschenden Wissenschaftsverständnisse sein jeweiliges Engagement in der Politikberatung determiniert und zusätzlich die konkrete Ausprägung der strukturellen Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Politik – sprich: den Grad der Vermischung der Funktionsprinzipien im Prozess der Politikberatung – bestimmt haben. Als besondere Zäsur stellte sich der Direktorenwechsel um 1982 heraus. Der vor der Zäsur beträchtliche gesellschaftliche Statusgewinn der in der Politikberatung engagierten Institutsmitglieder führte zur Verfestigung einer institutsinternen Hierarchie, die der empirischen Grundlagenforschung zeitweise eine Außenseiterrolle zuwies. Das dominierende Wissenschaftsverständnis nach der Zäsur betonte dann die Grundlagenforschung und definierte sich über die Abgrenzung von der Politikberatung einerseits und überdrehtem Theorieanspruch andererseits. ; Looking at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development (MPIHD) from a systems theory standpoint, this dissertation seeks to analyze policy adivising provided by researchers. In its work, the MPIHD was positioned in a triangle between the political system on the one side and the Max Planck Society on the other side. All three sides had their own logic of functioning and their own set of values that determined their mutual relationships. This complex triangular exchange of information was analyzed from a systems theory standpoint covering the timeframe between 1962 and 1989. Two different kinds of sources were applied: Firstly, approximately 60 semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with both current and former MPIHD members as well as additional stakeholders. Secondly, the archives of the Max Planck Society in Berlin were searched for all documents concerning the MPIHD; major publications of institute members were analyzed as well. It became clear that the researchers'' attitude toward basic versus applied research determined their respective engagement in policy advising and at the same time formed the concrete variation of „structural coupling“ - in other words: of the degree of overlay between the different logics of functioning of the scientific and the political realms in the process of policy advising. The replacement of the founding directors around 1982 proved to be a major turning point in the institute''s history. Before this turning point, being involved in policy advising led to considerable social status gains inside the institute''s hierarchy; a hierarchy that had put fundamental and, at least partly, empirical research at the sidelines. After the turning point, however, fundamental research was paramount in the institute''s set of values, and the mainstream consisted in refraining from policy advising and „overzealous“ theoretical discussions.
