Abstract
Two studies investigated the efficacy of 3 theoretical models in explaining college students judgments of peers who cheat and of accomplices who assist cheaters. The value pluralism model predicted that accomplices who acted for money would be judged more harshly than those who acted from friendship; the attributional model predicted that cheaters whose actions were caused by internal controllable factors would be judged more harshly than those who actions were caused by external uncontrollable factors, and the relative preference model predicted that students who saw themselves as more likely to act as the cheater and accomplice did would make less harsh judgments. Overall, the results provided the best support for the relative preference model.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
