This article discusses new developments about goal-dependent framing and multiple goal frames (sometimes also called "multiple motives"), which are highly relevant for understanding environmental behavior. We introduce goal-framing theory, which postulates that goals "frame" the way people process information and act upon it. Three goal frames are distinguished: a hedonic, gain, and normative goal frame. In general, multiple goals are active at any given time, which may (or may not) be compatible; that is, the strength of the focal goal may be influenced by other goals that are in the background. Based on an extensive review of studies in environmental psychology, we suggest those conditions under which each goal frame may be dominant in influencing environmental behavior. In the environmental context, normative goal frames imply acting pro-environmentally, while gain and hedonic goal frames often result in not acting in an environmentally sound manner. Next, we argue that pro-environmental behavior may be promoted by strengthening normative goals or by making gain and hedonic goals less incompatible with normative goals. Finally, based on goal-framing theory, we suggest questions to be addressed in future research.

Imagine that the neighborhood you are living in is covered with graffiti, litter, and unreturned shopping carts. Would this reality cause you to litter more, trespass, or even steal? A thesis known as the broken windows theory suggests that signs of disorderly and petty criminal behavior trigger more disorderly and petty criminal behavior, thus causing the behavior to spread. This may cause neighborhoods to decay and the quality of life of its inhabitants to deteriorate. For a city government, this may be a vital policy issue. But does disorder really spread in neighborhoods? So far there has not been strong empirical support, and it is not clear what constitutes disorder and what may make it spread. We generated hypotheses about the spread of disorder and tested them in six field experiments. We found that, when people observe that others violated a certain social norm or legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate other norms or rules, which causes disorder to spread.

Research on bullying and victimization largely rests on univariate analyses and on reports from a single informant. Researchers may thus know too little about the simultaneous effects of various independent and dependent variables, and their research may be biased by shared method variance. The database for this Dutch study was large (N = 1,065) and rich enough to allow multivariate analysis and multi-source information. In addition, the effect of familial vulnerability for internalizing and externalizing disorders was studied. Gender, aggressiveness, isolation, and dislikability were most strongly related to bullying and victimization. Among the many findings that deviated from or enhanced the univariate knowledge base were that not only victims and bully/victims but bullies as well were disliked and that parenting was unrelated to bullying and victimization once other factors were controlled.

The literature suggests that status goals are one of the driving motivations behind bullying behavior, yet this conjecture has rarely if ever been examined empirically. This study assessed status goals in three ways, using dyadic network analysis to analyze the relations and goals among 10-11 and 14-15 year olds in 22 school classes (N boys=225; N girls=277). As a validation bullies were contrasted with victims. Bullies had direct status goals (measured with the Interpersonal Goal Inventory for Children) and showed dominance as measured with proactive aggression. Moreover, as predicted from a goal perspective, bullying behavior was related to prestige in terms of perceived popularity. In contrast, victims lacked status goals, were only reactively aggressive, and low on prestige. That being popular is not the same as being liked could be shown by the fact that bullies were just as rejected as victims by their classmates. Eighth-grade bullies had more direct status goals than fourth-grade bullies, possibly indicating that striving for the popularity component of status increases in early adolescence.

Using frailty as the criterion to select older persons at risk for interventions may be better than selecting persons based only on their chronological age.

No abstract

To understand the complex nature of bullies' acceptance and rejection, this article considered goal-framing effects of status and affection as they relate to the gender of the bully (male vs. female bullies), the target (male vs. female victims), and the evaluator (acceptance and rejection from male vs. female classmates). The hypotheses were tested with data from a social network questionnaire conducted in 26 elementary school classes (N = 481 children; M age = 10.5 years). The findings revealed that bullies were only rejected by those for whom they were a potential threat and that bullies generally chose their victims so as to minimize loss of affection by choosing victims who were not likely to be defended by significant others.

For this study, information on Who Bullies Who was collected from 54 school classes with 918 children (M age = 11) and 13,606 dyadic relations. Bullying and victimization were viewed separately from the point of view of the bully and the victim. The two perspectives were highly complementary. The probability of a bully-victim relationship was higher if the bully was more dominant than the victim, and if the victim was more vulnerable than the bully and more rejected by the class. In a bully-victim dyad, boys were more often the bullies. There was no finding of sex effect for victimization. Liking reduced and disliking increased the probability of a bully-victim relationship.