This study focused on collaborative learning and students’ inferences about the views of other students. Previous social psychology studies of reasoning about others’ views have demonstrated that people generally overestimate the harshness of others’ judgments. This study investigated whether students thought that other students had good impressions of them when they expressed their opinions during collaborative learning. Furthermore, it examined whether a gap existed between the students’ views of the impressions other students had of them when they expressed opinions and the students’ impressions of others who expressed their opinions. Second-year junior high school students answered questions about doing group work with several classmates in a social studies class. Analysis of variance demonstrated that the students’ impressions of other students who expressed their opinions were better than the students’ impressions of themselves when they expressed their opinions to others. In addition, the students predicted that the other students had high impressions of them in absolute terms when they expressed their opinions, and the gap arose because the students had higher impressions of the other students.

A hidden profile is defined as a small-group decision task in which a superior decision alternative exists; however, each group member cannot detect the superiority, as each possesses a subset of information that supports an inferior decision alternative. This hidden profile can be addressed if group members share and integrate the information they possess. Based on the characteristics of the hidden profile, we hypothesize that discussing the advantages or strengths of decision alternatives (i.e., discussing with positive framing) is one possible key to addressing hidden profiles. To verify this hypothesis, we utilize the hidden profile paradigm and manipulate the discussion framing in small-group decision tasks (positive framing, negative framing, and control conditions) with 12 to 14 groups of three and four people per condition. Data were collected from 147 female undergraduate students. The findings do not support our hypothesis but suggest that discussing the disadvantages or weaknesses of decision alternatives (i.e., discussing with negative framing) may be more helpful in addressing hidden profiles. We also discuss the theoretical implications of these findings.

Against the background of the amended Juvenile Act of 2021, this study examined the determinants of the public acceptance of specified juveniles (aged 18 and 19) whose names were reported. We established a model consisting of the following four variables, which were predicted to be related to the acceptance of such specified juveniles: approval of the negative consequences of real-name reporting, belief in a just world, emphasis on forgiveness, and belief in redeemability. This model was examined using the conditions of forcible sexual intercourse and property destruction. Analysis of data obtained from 282 respondents indicated that for property destruction, belief in redeemability had a positive effect on the acceptance of such specified juveniles. In addition, for both forcible sexual intercourse and property destruction, the data relating to emphasis on forgiveness indicated that the respondents did not approve of the negative consequences of real-name reporting for these specified juveniles. These findings suggest that belief in redeemability and emphasis on forgiveness may promote positive attitudes toward specified juveniles whose names have been reported.

Disgust is related to harsher moral judgments, which is known as the amplification effect. Previous studies have examined other effects (e.g., the cleansing effect) based on the assumption that the amplification effect exists. This is problematic if the amplification effect does not exist. Therefore, this study investigated the robustness of the amplification effect. We set two conditions (disgust vs. neutral), presented visual images, and subsequently asked the participants to make moral judgments. We compared the disgust and neutral conditions and observed significant differences in the amplification effect on moral judgments, although the effect sizes were relatively small. This study makes a valuable contribution to existing theories on disgust and morality, especially regarding methodology, and its findings may apply to the mechanisms of other related phenomena.

When a case study is presented, there is often criticism regarding the representativeness of such studies. This criticism is commonly rebutted by the response that extreme cases reveal the true nature of the matter. Here, we scrutinize the concept of “extreme case” and conclude that cases should be selected on the basis of their theoretical or practical significance. No essential distinction exists between being representative and being extreme. Moreover, determining precisely whether a case is extreme or not is practically impossible. Case selection procedures that devote attention to the surrounding situations will enable researchers to discover theoretically significant cases. However, they should still leave room for serendipity.