Culture and Personal Epistemology: U.S. and Middle Eastern Students’ beliefs about Scientific Knowledge and Knowing

Middle Eastern (Omani) and Western (U.S.) students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing in the sciences were compared on four dimensions of personal epistemology proposed by Hofer and Pintrich ( Review of Educational Research (1997), 67 , 88–140). As predicted, given their experiences with comparatively traditional political and religious institutions, Omani more so than U.S. college students were more likely to accept scientific authorities as the basis of scientific truth. Furthermore, Omani men were more accepting of authorities than were Omani women, but there was no gender difference among U.S. students. Omani more than U.S. students also believed that knowledge in the sciences was simpler and more certain, which is consistent with comparisons between U.S. and Asian students (e.g., Qian & Pan, 2002, A comparision of epistemological beliefs and learning from science text between American and Chinese high school students. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistomology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 365–385), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum). Students in the two countries did not differ, however, in whether their beliefs were based on personal opinions versus systematic evidence. Suggestions for further research included directly assessing experiences with, and attitudes toward, authorities in academic and other areas of students’ lives.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43812/1/11218_2005_Article_1826.pd

Is compensation enough? Relational concerns in responding to unintended inequity

Traditional justice models suggest that monetary compensation is an adequate response to unintended distributive harm. This perspective is widely accepted in real world settings, and is manifested in policies ranging from worker compensation to the court-based tort system. Drawing on the arguments from relational models of authority, we hypothesize that compensation for losses may be viewed by victims as an inadequate response to the situation, even when those losses are accidental and not the result of intentional harm. In four experimental studies, respondents were asked to react to the receipt of monetary compensation for accidental distributive inequities under varying degrees of relational concern. Results indicate that judgments about the favorability of compensation are only one aspect of people's reaction to responses to harm. In each case, victims displayed more favorable reactions toward the group when compensation was supplemented by relational concern. © 2007 SAGE Publications