Attributions of Responsibility for Terrorist Attacks: The Role of Group Membership and Identification

Three studies examine how people’s attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim’s or perpetrator’s ingroup (studies 2 and 3). We observe that people’s group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. We discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations.

Interactive Curriculum Based on Models of Mind & Brain

What does it mean for curriculum to be interactive? It encourages student engagement and active participation in both individual and group work. It offers teachers a coherent set of materials to choose from that can enhance their classes. It is the product of on-going development and continuous improvement based on research and feedback from the field. This paper will introduce work in progress from the Center for Excellence in Education, Science, and Technology (CELEST), an NSF Science of Learning Center. Among its many goals, CELEST is developing a unique educational curriculum, an interactive curriculum based upon models of mind and brain. Teachers, administrators, and governments are naturally concerned with how students learn. Students are greatly concerned about how minds work, including how to learn. CELEST aims to introduce curricula that not only meet current U.S. standards in mathematics, science, and psychology but also influence plans to improve those standards. Software and support materials are in development and available at http://cns.bu.edu/celest/private/. Interested parties are invited to contact the author for access.

Landscapes of Education and the New Role of Social Work International Models of How to Combine Formal, Non-formal and Informal Education

Landscapes of education are a new topic within the debate about adequate and just education and human development for everybody. In particular, children and youths from social classes affected by poverty, a lack of prospects or minimal schooling are a focal group that should be offered new approaches and opportunities of cognitive and social development by way of these landscapes of education. It has become apparent that the traditional school alone does not suffice to meet this need. There is no doubt that competency-based orientation and employability are core areas with the help of which the generation now growing up will manage the start of its professional career. In addition and by no means less important, the development involves individual, social, cultural and societal perspectives that can be combined under the term of human development. In this context, the Capability Approach elaborated by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum has developed a more extensive concept of human development and related it to empirical instruments. Using the analytic concept of individual capabilities and societal opportunities they shaped a socio-political formula that should be adapted in particular to modern social work. Moreover, the Capability Approach offers a critical foil with regard to further development and revision of institutionalised approaches in education and human development.