组织中个体主动性行为“利与弊”

个体主动性行为是组织中个体主动做出的面向未来和面向变革的工作行为, 近年来成为组织行为研究领域的重要议题。从现有研究来看: (1)在研究主题上, 多数研究发现了个体主动性行为可以带来正向结果, 个别学者也注意到了个体主动性行为的代价; (2)在分析视角上, 主要包括个体主动性行为对个体层面和组织情境层面的正向与负向影响; (3)在理论机制上, 个体主动性行为的“利弊”效应可用优势互补理论、自我决定理论和归因理论来解释。未来研究可着重进行以下理论整合: (1)从个体主动性行为类型出发, 基于智慧主动性的视角揭示其内在机制; (2)从主动性行为者和观察者特征两面性的视角, 实证探讨其背后机理; (3)从主动性行为主客体特征的发展视角进行动态研究。     

A Zero-Relationship Justification of Rights: A Contractual Approach Based on Rawls’ Device of the “Original Position”

In contemporary moral and political philosophy, there are two leading approaches to the justification of rights. These could be broadly identified as deontological theories and consequential theories. These two schools of theories each have their own strengths and weakness, while there is also a third contractual approach that is under represented. Because Rawls’ and Scanlon’s well-known contractual theories are designed for purposes other than the justification of rights, the purpose of this paper is to establish a principle of rights on the basis of Rawls’ justification device of the “original position.” First, it supplies a criterion based on human conduct or action. Second, based on this account of human conduct, different types of relationships are constructed and presented to the parties in the “original position.” Third, it will show that the parties in the “original position” would choose one of these relationships as the principle of rights. Finally, Rawls’ first principle of justice will be reformulated. The procedure of choosing a principle of rights in this paper could also be viewed as a demonstration that, when properly situated and motivated, human beings exhibit their potential as rational beings.     

Discrimination learning with and without “errors”

Responses to S− (“errors”) are not a necessary condition for the formation of an operant discrimination of color. Errors do not occur if discrimination training begins early in conditioning and if S+ and S− initially differ with respect to brightness, duration and wavelength. After training starts, S−'s duration and brightness is progressively increased until S+ and S− differ only with respect to wavelength. Errors do occur if training starts after much conditioning in the presence of S+ has occurred or if S+ and S− differ only with respect to wavelength throughout training. Performance following discrimination learning without errors lacks three characteristics that are found following learning with errors. Only those birds that learned the discrimination with errors showed (1) “emotional” responses in the presence of S−, (2) an increase in the rate (or a decrease in the latency) of its response to S+, and (3) occasional bursts of responses to S−.     

“Lying” in the pigeon

Two pigeons were taught to use symbols to communicate information about hidden colors to each other. When reporting red was more generously reinforced than reporting yellow or green, both birds passed through a period in which they “lied” by reporting another color as red.     

数字生态系统中创业机会的形成与发展：基于社会资本理论的探究

数字创业浪潮方兴未艾, 机会属性变化引起的数字创业机会形成与变化规律尚未被揭示。本研究以数字生态系统作为研究情境, 分析创业者利用数字生态系统可供性积累的社会资本, 如何影响创业机会形成与发展。从机会的合意性维度和内容维度两方面解释创业机会的变化规律, 考察创业者认知监控与新创企业数字化程度对这一路径的调节作用。本研究拓展社会资本理论在数字创业背景下的应用, 深化数字生态系统中的创业机会研究, 有助于指导创业者利用数字平台开展“破坏性创造”, 提升机会识别质量和效率, 促进创业生态系统建设。     

二语具身认知：自动激活还是母语中介?

语言具身认知强调语言加工不是纯粹抽象符号的内部表征, 身体和环境也在其中发挥着重要作用。已有研究多来自母语(L1)领域, 二语(L2)认知中是否存在该效应及其发生机制依然存在争论。在总结行为和神经电生理学方面L2具身效应的存在的证据的基础上, 结合相关研究, 我们提出“自动激活”和“母语中介”两种假说, 并分析和评价两种假说的优缺点和影响因素。最后讨论了该领域存在的问题并就未来研究取向进行展望, 希望有助于完善语言具身认知理论, 增进对双语表征机制的了解, 有效提升L2教学。     

“转换-坚持”对低阶层健康的保护作用及其机制

低社会阶层是不良健康状况最可靠的社会决定因素之一。然而, 很少有人理解为什么同样处于低阶层, 有些个体却能保持良好的健康状况。在大量实证研究的基础上, 研究者们发现“转换-坚持”策略这一心理因素能有效保护处于逆境中的低阶层者的健康, 使其免于受到疾病的侵扰。当个体面临持续或频繁的压力时, “转换-坚持”策略减轻了下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺轴的急性生理激活, 有效抑制了低阶层面临逆境时的生理应激反应, 随着时间的推移, 阻止了致病过程的发展; 同时, 该策略还减少了低阶层者的不良健康行为, 进而对健康起到保护作用。未来研究应在深入探索核心机制基础上开发出有效的干预方案, 为解决我国相对贫困问题中的健康贫困提供新的路径。     

农民工的工作退缩行为：基于多重嵌入和身份压力的视角

2.9亿农民工的工作退缩行为——为减少工作和组织角色而有意采取的行为(回避工作和降低努力、迟到缺勤、离职等)影响重大。为此, 本研究以资源保存理论作为“伞”理论, 整合了多重嵌入和身份压力的视角, 构建了一个全面预测农民工的工作退缩行为的模型。在该模型中, 提出了同时包含隐性和显性的工作退缩行为的测量指标体系; 构建了农民工在城市和家乡的多重嵌入对不同工作退缩行为的预测关系, 以及“农村人”和“城市人”的双重身份压力经由农民工在城市的多重嵌入对工作退缩行为的间接预测效应。本研究基于农民工样本的特异性, 构建了一个“背景化”的全面预测工作退缩行为的理论模型, 不仅弥补了微观层面农民工研究的理论空白, 也丰富了身份、多重嵌入和工作退缩行为领域的理论和文献。     

TEACHING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER TO MAND FOR INFORMATION USING “WHICH?”

We examined a procedure consisting of a preference assessment, prompting, contrived conditioned establishing operations, and consequences for correct and incorrect responses for teaching children with autism to mand “which?” We used a modified multiple baseline design across 3 participants. All the children learned to mand “which?” Generalization occurred to the natural environment, to a novel activity, and to a novel container; the results were maintained over time.Key words: mand for information, verbal behavior, verbal operant, whichContrived motivating operations have been used to teach mands for information to children with autism, including the mands “what?” (e.g., Williams, Donley, & Keller, 2000), “where?” (e.g., Betz, Higbee, & Pollard, 2010; Lechago, Carr, Grow, Love, & Almason, 2010), and “who?” (e.g., Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer, 2002). More recently, researchers have examined the effects of contriving establishing operations (CEOs) in four different ways to teach children with autism to acquire the mands “what?” (Marion, Martin, Yu, & Buhler, 2011; Roy-Wsiaki, Marion, Martin, & Yu, 2010) and “where?” (Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, in press). Like the mands “what?” and “where?,” the mand “which?” is a mand for information that gives the speaker the ability to gather specific information regarding an item (e.g., “Which book is mine?”). Given the dearth of research that has examined interventions to teach mands for information using “which?,” the purpose of the present study was to extend the work of Marion et al. (2011, in press) by contriving one of four CEOs for teaching the mand “which?” to children with autism, and to assess for generalization to the other CEOs, the natural environment, and over time.     

童年亲子关系与“好资源”对未婚男性性开放态度的影响

本研究采用实验启动的方式探讨“好资源”和童年环境对未婚男性性开放态度的影响, 结果发现童年亲子关系(而不是童年经济状况)在资源线索启动和性开放态度之间存在显著调节作用。研究1采用想象启动来控制个体的资源获取状况, 结果发现：童年亲子关系差的个体在“好资源”想象时其性开放态度较“差资源”想象时明显提升。研究2采用图片情境的资源想象方式, 在研究1的基础上进一步把亲子关系细分成亲子沟通、亲子焦虑和亲子回避三个维度, 结果表明：童年亲子回避在男性资源状况启动和性开放态度之间存在显著调节作用, 童年亲子高回避的个体在“好资源”照片情境想象下其性开放态度显著提升, 而童年亲子低回避的个体在“好资源”照片情境想象下其性开放态度明显下降; 此外, 童年亲子回避在性开放态度上的主效应显著, 亲子回避程度高的个体其性开放态度也更高。两个研究共同揭示了“男人有钱就变坏”的情境和群体特殊性。     

Why be moral: Humanist and behavioral perspectives

Students of philosophy have struggled with the question, “Why should I be moral?” Many diverse theorists have constructed elaborate logical arguments that explain why people in general should behave morally, but have had difficulty explaining why any given individual, safe from detection or retribution, should behave in a moral fashion. To avoid this problem, the notion of a supernatural deity (one who is always watching and thus removes the notion of nondetection and nonretribution) has been introduced by numerous thinkers. Philosophical systems that pride themselves on being based only on natural phenomena, however, can make no such recourse (leading to the charge, particularly from the religious, that without a god concept there can be no morality). Naturalistic humanists and behavior analysts are two groups who have found themselves unable to invoke a deity and thus face the question “Why should I behave morally?” Parallel attempts from both camps will be described and analyzed, with the conclusion being drawn that although such naturalists may not be better off than their more religious friends, they are certainly no worse off.     

On some limits of hypothetical thinking

Faced with extreme demands, hypothetical thinking runs the danger of total failure. Paradoxical propositions such as the Liar (“I am lying”) provide an opportunity to test it to its limits, while the Liar's nonparadoxical counterpart, the Truthteller (“I am telling the truth”), provides a useful comparison. Two experiments are reported, one with abstract materials (“If I am a knave then I live in Emerald City”) and one with belief-laden materials (a judge says: “If I am a knave then I enjoy pop music”). In both experiments, conditionals with Truthteller-type antecedents were “collapsed” to responses of conditional probability closely resembling estimates of control items. Liar-type antecedents, in contrast, dramatically weakened belief in conditionals in which they were embedded. The results are discussed in the framework of the theory of hypothetical thinking.     

小学教师职业倦怠维度发展顺序探究——来自结构方程模型和交叉滞后网络分析模型的证据

教师职业倦怠的情感衰竭、去人性化和个人成就感降低3个维度相对独立但也存在相互影响, 对其发展关系进行研究, 有助于深入理解职业倦怠的发展过程, 尽早识别倦怠症状。本研究对3837名小学教师进行追踪测试, 测试间隔为3年, 采用结构方程模型和交叉滞后网络分析模型进行分析, 结果发现小学教师职业倦怠维度最优发展模型为“T1的情感衰竭和个人成就感降低分别预测T2的情感衰竭和个人成就感降低, T1的去人性化预测T2的去人性化和个人成就感降低”, 且最优发展模型具有性别间的一致性和教龄段之间的一致性。这一结果支持并强调了去人性化在小学教师职业倦怠发展中的重要作用, 对识别教师职业倦怠早期症状并采取相应措施有效阻断教师职业倦怠的进一步发展具有一定的理论和现实意义。     

英语语法伴随习得的实验研究

采用指导语分离程序,探讨“阅读翻译”和“规则找寻”两种指导形式下,初一学生英语宾语从句规则学习的过程及心理机制。研究结果表明：（1）英语“阅读翻译”中存在“语法伴随习得”;（2）这种伴随习得在一定程度上表现为直觉,表明它具有一定的内隐性;（3）测试过程中出现了“记忆依据优先”现象。     

居危思变?工作不安全感对创新行为的差异化影响?

企业往往在员工管理和组织创新上处于“两难困境”——难以提供稳定工作但又不得不依赖员工实现组织创新, 这就使得研究员工工作不安全感对创新行为的影响至关重要。企业员工遭遇不同环境威胁带来的工作不安全感时, 创新行为存在差异。本文在威胁焦点下深化工作不安全感概念, 并基于“以变量为中心”和“以人为中心”的研究思路, 探讨其对创新行为的差异化影响过程。首先, 结合环境威胁来源与主观感知, 把工作不安全感分为岗位焦点工作不安全感和人员焦点工作不安全感两个维度, 并将编制测量量表。其次, 期望运用纵向研究设计, 通过分析多时点的员工-主管配对数据, 基于情境调节焦点和工作激情的链式中介作用, 来揭示岗位焦点工作不安全感对创新行为的负向影响, 以及人员焦点工作不安全感对创新行为的倒U型影响。最后, 将采取“以人为中心”的研究思路, 运用潜在剖面分析方法探讨工作不安全感潜在类型及其对创新行为的影响。研究结果将有助于推进工作不安全感的概念和效用研究, 也为企业如何有效促进创新提供对策建议。     

The conditioning of textual responses using “extrinsic” reinforcers

Six 4-year-old Ss were presented with a textual program consisting of 26 words arranged so the word stimuli were gradually combined into sentences and then short “stories.” Three Ss were given the No-Reinforcement condition first, and only social reinforcers were presented. They were switched to the Reinforcement condition as soon as they requested discontinuance of the activity. The other three Ss were given Reinforcement—No Reinforcement—Reinforcement treatments. The No-Reinforcement treatment in this case lasted until S requested discontinuance of the activity. The reinforcers were mixed edibles and trinkets, as well as tokens backed up by small plastic toys on a 1:24 ratio. The unit of response was the number of new texts acquired as a result of each of the 45-min experimental sessions. It was demonstrated that the program, procedure, and reinforcement conditions produced curves which are analogous to those produced in common operant-conditioning procedures. The results indicate that other operant principles may be studied in this significant area of human behavior, with important practical consequences.     

THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT IS THIS?” ON TACT-TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Tact training is a common element of many habilitative programs for individuals with developmental disabilities. A commonly recommended practice is to include a supplemental question (e.g., “What is this?”) during training trials for tacts of objects. However, the supplemental question is not a defining feature of the tact relation, and prior research suggests that its inclusion might sometimes impede tact acquisition. The present study compared tact training with and without the supplemental question in terms of acquisition and maintenance. Two of 4 children with autism acquired tacts more efficiently in the object-only condition; the remaining 2 children acquired tacts more efficiently in the object + question condition. During maintenance tests in the absence of the supplemental question, all participants emitted tacts at end-of-training levels across conditions with no differential effect observed between training conditions.Key words: autism, language training, stimulus control, tacts, verbal behaviorSkinner (1957) defined the tact as a response “evoked by a particular object or event or property of an object or event” (p. 82) and considered it to be one of the most important verbal operants. Tacts are maintained by generalized social reinforcement and, thus, they are central to many social interactions. For example, the tact “That cloud looks like a horse” (under the control of a visual stimulus) could evoke a short verbal interaction about the sky or horses. The tact “My tummy hurts” (under the control of an interoceptive stimulus) could evoke soothing statements from a parent. A child who tacts “doggie” in the presence of a cat likely would evoke a correction statement from an adult, further refining two stimulus classes (i.e., dog and cat). These examples illustrate that, despite their topographical differences, the tact relations share antecedent control by a nonverbal discriminative stimulus (S^D) and are maintained by generalized social reinforcement.In habilitative programs for individuals with language impairments, autism, and intellectual disabilities, tacts often are taught for objects (e.g., ball), object features (e.g., color, size, shape), activities (e.g., jumping), prepositions (e.g., between), and emotions (e.g., sad) among others. Although conceptualized differently among therapeutic approaches, the tact relation occupies a central position in many early-intervention curricula. For example, Lovaas (2003) and Leaf and McEachin (1999) describe these relations as expressive labels and recommend that they be taught early in language training using three-dimensional objects accompanied by the supplemental questions “What is it?” or “What''s this?” Alternatively, Sundberg and Partington (1998) explicitly refer to the relation as a tact and recommend beginning instruction by including the question “What is it?” before eventually fading the question. In addition to these clinical manuals, the use of supplemental questions during tact training has appeared in some empirical studies on tact or expressive-label training (e.g., Braam & Sundberg, 1991; Coleman & Stedman, 1974), but not others (e.g., Williams & Greer, 1993). Regardless of whether tact training initially includes supplemental questions prior to response opportunities, tacts ultimately should be emitted readily under the sole control of the nonverbal S^D as well as when it happens to be accompanied by a question.Conceptually, at least four potential problems could arise from introducing supplemental questions early and consistently in tact training. First, the acquired responses might not be emitted unless the question is posed (i.e., prompt dependence). This problem would lead to few spontaneous tacts occurring outside the explicit stimulus control of the training environment. Williams and Greer (1993) compared comprehensive language training conducted under the stimulus control specified in Skinner''s (1957) taxonomy of verbal behavior to a more traditional psycholinguistic perspective with supplemental questions and instructions embedded within trials. For all three adolescents with developmental disabilities, the targets taught from the verbal behavior perspective were maintained better in natural contexts than those taught from the psycholinguistic perspective. However, because data were not reported for each individual verbal operant, it is unclear what specific impact their tact-training procedures had on the outcomes.The second potential problem is that the supplemental question might acquire intraverbal control over early responses and interfere with the acquisition of subsequent tact targets. For example, Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, and Spengler (1994) showed that the tact repertoire of a child with autism had been hindered by prior instruction during which she was asked “What is this?” while being shown an object. The supplemental question subsequently evoked previously acquired responses and blocked the ability of new nonverbal S^Ds (i.e., objects) to evoke new responses. Partington et al. then showed that new tacts were acquired by eliminating the supplemental question from instructional trials.The third potential problem is that learners might imitate part of or the entire supplemental question prior to emitting the target response (e.g., “What is it” → “What is it … ball.”). For example, Coleman and Stedman (1974) demonstrated that a 10-year-old girl with autism imitated the question “What is this?” while being taught to label stimuli depicted in color photographs. Such an outcome results in a socially awkward tact repertoire and requires additional intervention to remedy the problem.Finally, including supplemental questions during tact training might impede skill acquisition, perhaps via a combination of the problems described earlier. Sundberg, Endicott, and Eigenheer (2000) taught sign tacts to two young children with autism who had prior difficulty acquiring tacts. In one condition, the experimenter held up an object and asked, “What is that?” In the comparison condition, the experimenter intraverbally prompted the participant to “sign [object name]” in the presence of the object. Sundberg et al. demonstrated substantially more efficient tact acquisition under the sign-prompt condition than when the question “What is that?” was included in trials; the latter condition sometimes failed to produce mastery-level responding.Teaching an entire tact repertoire while including supplemental questions (e.g., “What is it?”) during training trials could produce a learner who is able to talk about his or her environment only when asked to do so with similar questions. To the extent that this is not a therapist''s clinical goal, teaching the tact under its proper controlling variables may eliminate such problems. Of course, inclusion of supplemental questions during the early phases of language training could be faded over time such that the target tact relation is left intact prior to the end of training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998). However, the aforementioned studies have documented problems with using supplemental questions during tact training. Given the ubiquity of tact training in habilitation programs, the numerous problems that may arise when supplemental questions are included in training trials, and the limited research on the topic, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare directly the rate of acquisition and subsequent maintenance of tacts taught using only a nonverbal S^D (i.e., object only) with tacts taught using a question (“What is this?”) in conjunction with the nonverbal S^D (i.e., object + question). The present study extends earlier research by examining both acquisition and maintenance and by including individuals with no prior history of formal tact training.     

智慧时代的螺丝钉：机器人凸显对职场物化的影响

在“工具人” “打工人” “社畜”等流行语风靡职场的当下, 职场物化已然成为了一个亟需探讨的话题。而随着人工智能尤其是机器人在职场中的使用日益增多, 机器人产生的职场效应也值得关注。因此, 本项目旨在探讨在人工智能飞速发展的当今社会, 机器人渗入职场是否会产生或加重职场物化现象。基于群际威胁理论和补偿控制理论, 我们假设职场中的机器人员工凸显会增加职场物化。项目采用实验、大数据与问卷调查相结合的方式, 首先考察机器人员工的凸显是否会增加职场物化, 初步验证影响效应; 然后探讨机器人影响职场物化的中介机制, 试图发现感知威胁和控制补偿的链式中介效应; 最后从个人、机器人和环境三方面分别考察其对机器人影响职场物化的调节作用, 并从组织文化的角度探讨对职场物化的干预策略。对本项目的探索有助于结合人工智能尤其是机器人发展背景, 前瞻性地了解人工智能在职场中可能的负面影响, 并提出有效的解决方案。     

孔子思想中的君子人格：心理学测量的探索

君子人格是中国文化(尤其是儒学思想)中的理想的人格特质, 对于理解中国文化心理具有重要意义, 但鲜有实证研究。通过经典文本的理论分析与心理测量的实证分析相结合的方法, 选取《论语》中孔子对君子的论述编制初测条目, 通过探索性和验证性因素分析、效标关联效度分析等实证研究方法(总样本量 = 1916), 对孔子思想中的君子人格的内在结构进行了探索, 并编制了具有良好信效度的测量工具。结果表明, 孔子思想中的君子人格包含了智仁勇、恭而有礼、喻义怀德、有所不为、持己无争5个因素。此外还考察了其与大五人格、中国人价值观、自我和谐、合作与竞争人格倾向、亲社会倾向等效标变量的相关关系。     

A study of position habits induced by reward and “frustration”

Predictions from Maier's theory of “frustration”-instigated behaviour have been tested in an experimental situation differing significantly from that in which the theory was propounded yet containing the central element of “frustration”—the insoluble problem.

A water discrimination unit was employed in which the performance of rats would be observed during attacks on insoluble problems, position problems or symbol problems.

Two groups, each containing ten Wistar albino rats, served as subjects. The research design consisted of the following phases: preliminary training, development of position responses, exposure to a symbol-reward problem with 50 per cent, punishment and exposure to a symbol-reward problem with 100 per cent, punishment. The design differed for the two groups only at the phase in which the position responses were established. During this phase one group was exposed to a position-reward problem and the other to an insoluble problem.

Position responses were established as frequently under position-“frustration” (position stereotypes) as under position-reward (position habits) conditions. Position stereotypes were more rigid—more resistant to extinction—than position habits under conditions of 50 per cent, punishment. Position stereotypes were as readily extinguished under 100 per cent, punishment as were position habits under 30 per cent, punishment.

The first two observations conform to predictions made from Maier's theory. The third does not. That is to say, not all situations containing the basic elements of “frustration” give rise to stereotyped behaviour patterns which are as rigid or “fixated” as Maier's theory would predict. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the characteristics of stereotyped responses established in certain “frustration” situations may be described adequately in terms of conventional learning principles without the necessity of resorting to a distinction between “goal-motivated” and “frustration-instigated” behaviour.