父母自主支持与青少年未来规划:基本心理需要与个人成长主动性的中介作用

基于自我决定理论,采用问卷法对广州市2所初中（初一和初二）和2所高中（高一和高二）共562名学生进行调查,考察了父母自主支持与青少年未来规划的关系,以及基本心理需要和个人成长主动性在其中的链式中介作用。结果发现：（1）父母自主支持显著正向预测青少年未来教育规划,但对未来职业规划的预测作用不显著;（2）基本心理需要和个人成长主动性在父母自主支持和青少年未来教育、职业规划之间均起着显著的链式中介作用;（3）纳入基本心理需要和个人成长主动性的中介作用后,父母自主支持对未来职业规划具有显著的负向残余效应,但对未来教育规划的残余效应不显著,这表明父母自主支持对青少年未来规划的影响可能存在坏的一面。因此,基本心理需要和个人成长主动性是影响父母自主支持与青少年未来规划之间关系的重要内因。     

Getting less than their fair share: Maltreated youth are hyper‐cooperative yet vulnerable to exploitation in a public goods game

Human cooperative behavior has long been thought to decline under adversity. However, studies have primarily examined perceived patterns of cooperation, with little eye to actual cooperative behavior embedded within social interaction. Game‐theoretical paradigms can help close this gap by unpacking subtle differences in how cooperation unfolds during initial encounters. This study is the first to use a child‐appropriate, virtual, public goods game to study actual cooperative behavior in 329 participants aged 9–16 years with histories of maltreatment (n = 99) and no maltreatment (n = 230) while controlling for psychiatric symptoms. Unlike work on perceived patterns of cooperation, we found that maltreated participants actually contribute more resources to a public good during peer interaction than their nonmaltreated counterparts. This effect was robust when controlling for psychiatric symptoms and peer problems as well as demographic variables. We conclude that maltreatment may engender a hyper‐cooperative strategy to minimize the odds of hostility and preserve positive interaction during initial encounters. This, however, comes at the cost of potential exploitation by others.     

预先承诺的理论解释及其神经机制

预先承诺是指个体提前做出一个有长远目标的决定来限制对即时诱惑的选择,从而避免在未来决策中由于意志力缺乏而出现的自我控制失败。最后期限法和限制选择法是开展预先承诺研究的常用范式。本研究在系统回顾预先承诺的三种理论解释（自我控制资源模型、神经网络模型和时间差强化学习模型）的基础上,尝试提出一个整合性的认知神经机制模型来解释预先承诺的作用过程。未来研究可进一步丰富预先承诺的研究范式和应用范围,并探究预先承诺调控非理性决策的心理与神经机制。     

Maximum Likelihood Analysis of Linear Mediation Models with Treatment–Mediator Interaction

Psychometrika - This research concerns a mediation model, where the mediator model is linear and the outcome model is also linear but with a treatment–mediator interaction term and a residual...     

What day is today? A social-psychological investigation into the process of time orientation.

Social-psychological research on time has pointed to the social construct of time rather than a mere physical entity that we reflect cognitively. Using two paradigms (day retrieval process and goal priming), the authors show that the time orientation is strongly prone to social influences and argue that a self-regulatory process underlies these findings. The degree of social comparison orientation in Study 1 and the degree of identification with groups for which the landmark is relevant (Study 2) both moderate the functionality of the landmarks within time orientation. Consistent with these findings, Studies 3 and 4 offer evidence that the activation of a personally relevant goal activates the day of goal attainment, a process that again can be moderated by social comparison orientation and identification. Overall, these results suggest a socially regulated time orientation. The internal clock (if any) is at least partly a "social clock."     

摄论学派与早期华严宗的形成

摄论学派对<华严经>的研究,是以昙迁为中心人物而展开.智俨的师承:杜顺、达法师、法常、灵辨、静琳、智正,后四位皆曾受教于昙迁,都具有融合<摄论>与<华严经>的学风.昙迁<亡是非论>阐明"亡是非"、"无心"与"性起"观念中的"离相"、"不起"等观念相合,所以能够"顺性起".智俨是针对<瑜伽论>、<成唯识论>为三乘始教,而强调<摄论>为三乘终教;但是,他又将<摄论>置于"从始入终"的位置,唯识学经过<摄论>的中介作用,最后进入<地论>、<起信论>的终教.法藏通过接受摄论学派的"三无性同一无性",而提出"三性一际",最后归入<起信论>的如来藏缘起,建立了"法界缘起".     

基于语义错觉效应的句子加工探索

“语义错觉效应”是指读者在加工某些语义违例句子时,会暂时性地产生语义合理错觉,而只有通过继续加工或者再加工才能辨别出错误的现象,在脑电成分上表现为没有出现N400效应,却出现P600效应。“语义错觉效应”对传统的句子加工理论模型以及N400和P600的特异性功能意义提出了质疑。研究者在讨论此效应的基础上提出了多个句子加工模型,各模型对语义和句法加工的过程进行了探索,对语义和句法通道的关系做出了新的阐述,并对N400和P600的功能意义做出了新的解读。目前研究对N400功能的解释存在语义整合观和词汇激活观的分歧,而对P600功能的解释则从传统的句法功能转换到了更宽泛的加工过程。未来研究应关注词汇语义关系和跨语言差异,以期进一步揭示句子加工的认知及神经机制。     

Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach

A motivational approach to ingroup favoritism based on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997) is introduced. RFT suggests that individual self-regulation is either more concerned with approaching positive events (promotion focus) or with avoiding negative events (prevention focus). It is suggested that if an individual self-categorizes as a group member, resource allocations to one’s group will be based on these mechanisms of self-regulation. Thus, a promotion focus should engender ingroup favoritism during the distribution of positive resources but not during the distribution of negative resources, whereas a prevention focus should engender ingroup favoritism for negative but not for positive resources. The results of two studies support this prediction based on momentary and chronic regulatory focus. The self-regulation approach to ingroup favoritism provides an explanation for social discrimination in the distribution of positive and negative resources.