优生与差生自我调节学习的对比研究

对优生与差生的自我调节学习进行了对比,力图从这一角度探讨差生学习不良的原因.被试为小学高年级学生(差生37名,优生44名),考察其目标定向、认知加工方式及失败应对策略.结果表明,两组被试在自我调节学习上存在一定差异,差生在学习活动中倾向于进行回避定向,对学习材料多进行表层加工或产生自我阻碍,遭遇失败时多采用情绪发泄的策略进行应对;两组被试在自我调节学习各成分之间的关系上也存在一定差异,最主要表现为成绩定向对优生的学习有一定的促进作用,但对差生的学习则有破坏作用.此外,两组被试在自我调节学习各成分之间的关系上也表现出一定相似性.     

Transformational Analysis and Religious Experience

Journal of Religion and Health - The therapeutic process, which taps into the individual’s most vulnerable inner experience, can always reach a radical reversal of one’s perception of...     

Superior perception of phasic physiological arousal and the detrimental consequences of the conviction to be aroused on worrying and metacognitions in GAD

Although people suffering from generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) often report arousal symptoms, psychophysiological studies show no evidence of autonomic hyperarousal. Hypersensitivity toward and catastrophic interpretation of phasic arousal cues may explain this discrepancy. The authors tested (a) whether GAD sufferers perceive nonspecific skin conductance fluctuations (NSCFs), an indicator of phasic autonomic arousal, better than controls do and (b) whether the conviction to be aroused contributes to the maintenance of worrying and metacognitive beliefs about worrying. Thirty-three GAD sufferers and 34 healthy controls participated in 2 experiments. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to detect their own NSCFs during a signal detection task. GAD sufferers accurately detected more of their NSCFs than did controls, who tended to miss NSCFs. In Experiment 2, participants were instructed to relax following worry induction. While relaxing, they received nonveridical feedback indicating either arousal or relaxation. Arousal feedback conserved negative metacognitive beliefs regarding worrying and also maintained negative mood and worry exclusively in GAD participants. These findings suggest that superior perception of phasic arousal cues and their catastrophic misinterpretation increases worrying, negative metacognitive beliefs about worrying, and anxious mood in GAD.     

When two paradigms meet: Does evaluative learning extinguish in differential fear conditioning?

Contemporary theories of Pavlovian conditioning propose a distinction between signal learning (SL), in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) becomes a predictor for a biologically significant unconditioned stimulus (US), and evaluative learning (EL), in which the valence of the US is transferred to the CS. This distinction is based largely on the different susceptibilities of EL and SL to extinction. This study compared the extinction of indices of EL (online valence ratings) and SL (US-expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses, SCRs) in a differential fear conditioning design using complex CSs. Only half of the participants gave online valence ratings, allowing us to confirm that online valence measurement did not influence SCRs. In line with the distinction between EL and SL, SCRs extinguished rapidly while valence ratings showed resistance to extinction. US-expectancy ratings, however, were not distinguishable from valence ratings indicating that verbal indicators of EL and SL share a similar time course.     

What is the Question to Which Husserl’s Fifth Cartesian Meditation is the Answer?

Interpreters generally agree that the Fifth Cartesian Meditation fails to achieve its task, but they do not agree on what that task is. In my essay, I attempt to formulate the question to which the Fifth Cartesian Meditation gives the answer. While it is usually assumed that the text poses a rather ambitious question, I suggest that the text asks, “How is the Other given to me on the most basic level?” The answer would be that the Other is given as accessible in the mode of inaccessibility. Husserl’s failure to convey this question clearly seems rooted in ambiguities concerning the concepts of solipsism and the sphere of ownness.     

German translation and psychometric evaluation of the Body Appreciation Scale

This paper examined the psychometric properties of the German version of the Body Appreciation Scale (BAS), a novel scale for the assessment of positive body image. Based on a community sample of 156 women and 144 men in Austria, results showed good internal reliability and construct validity for the BAS scores, as well as a unidimensional factor structure for both women and men. Specifically, Cronbach's alpha was high for both women ( = .90) and men ( = .85), and the BAS was correlated with the body esteem scale and self-esteem. In addition, women with lower BMIs reported greater body appreciation, but no such association was found for men. Finally, there were small sex differences in BAS scores, with men scoring more positively than women (Cohen's d = 0.26). The German BAS, a useful indicator of positive body image among Austrian adults, should prove valuable for the assessment of body image in German-speaking countries.     

The Role of Generativity in Psychological Well-Being: Does it Differ for Childless Adults and Parents?

Given that parenthood is considered a central adult status with developmental implications, and an increasing number of adults are childless, we assessed whether adult development is structured differently for parents and non-parents. This study’s main goal was to assess and compare the connection between generativity development—a key task of middle adulthood—and psychological well-being for childless adults (N = 289) and parents (N = 2,218), ages 35–74, using the 1995 MIDUS dataset. We also examined differences in these associations for women and men by parental status, because childlessness is often assumed to be more critical for females’ than males’ development. Structural equation modeling indicated a positive association between generativity and psychological well-being. Differences in this association for parents and childless adults were not evident, nor were there significant differences for childless women and mothers, and childless men and fathers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors,judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts

Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.