The purpose of this survey was to examine how possession awareness changed when people lend or borrow something with his friends. 486 university students and professional students (196 males and 290 females) cooperated to answer the questionnaire for investigation. They were asked about (1) if you lent your (book/pen/notebook) to your friend and (2・3 days/10 days/1 month/1 year/5 years) were past, how do you think about ownership with the article? (2) if you borrowed a (book/pen/notebook) from your friend and (2・3 days/10 days/1 month/1 year/5 years) were past, how do you think about ownership with the article? ‥ and more. The results of the research concluded that consciousness of possession will decreases during he lends something to his friend. And when he borrows something from his friends, his consciousness of possession will increase.

View full abstract

This study investigated the influence of positive leading information, negative leading information and emotionality of the witnessed event on post-event information effect. A total of 123 undergraduates participated in the study. There were two types of witnessed event (emotional and neutral). There were two types of post-event information (positive leading and negative leading information). Participants were shown a film clip followed by some post-event information in the form of written eyewitness testimony. Afterward, they were asked to perform interval tasks and then answer eight questions concerning the film clip. Results showed main effect of post-event information, and an interaction of emotionality and post-event information. Furthermore, eyewitness memory was less influenced by post-event information when the witnessed event was emotional.

View full abstract

This paper examined through questionnaire surveys, the judgments of undergraduate students (n=246) with respect to conflicts between various human rights and common welfare issues. None of the participants had majored in law. They were presented with four cases that contained conflicts between several human rights. The participants who were presented with the 'moral' version of the questionnaire (n=141) were asked for their opinion on the preferable course of action, while the others were presented with the 'legal' version (n=105) and were asked: 'If you were a citizen judge, what would your thoughts be on this matter?' The participants' judgments did not differ greatly by gender, current major, high school electives in the social sciences, knowledge of legal terminologies, and self-declared experience with respect to human rights. There were no clear differences between the results obtained from the responses to the legal and moral versions. Several heuristics of the 'disregard for due process', 'undue focus on personalities', 'unilateral respects of gains', and 'labelling possibilities without any proof' were observed.

View full abstract