复杂情境下不同角度及思维方式的决策表现差异:决策视角-心理距离的作用

本研究运用2个行为实验探讨了复杂情境下自我决策、为他人决策和预期他人决策在无意识思维方式和有意识思维方式下的决策表现差异。实验1发现复杂情境中无意识思维方式下,自我决策和为他人决策的决策表现显著优于预期他人决策,自我决策和为他人决策表现没有显著差异。实验2发现复杂情境中有意识思维时,在陌生人条件下,为他人决策表现分数显著高于自我决策与预期他人决策,自我决策和预期他人决策表现无显著差异;在朋友条件下,为他人决策和预期他人决策的决策表现显著优于自我决策,为他人决策和预期他人决策表现无显著差异。研究结果支持了本文提出的决策视角-心理距离作用假设(the Perspective-Distance Effect Hypothesis,PDEH)。     

心理研究中引入贝叶斯统计推断的必要性、应用思路与领域

本文从科学范式演变和概率统计推断特征分析出发,就贝叶斯统计推断引入心理学的必要性、怎么应用、在哪些领域应用集中进行了论述。首先在分析科学范式演进各阶段统计推断任务需要、经典的频率概率统计推断不足基础上,得出科学范式处于危机和革命阶段时需要对相关理论做可信度检验。然后,在介绍贝叶斯定理及其统计推断的基础上,进一步分析了贝叶斯推断能解决理论可信度的多种假设检验情景。最后本文还就贝叶斯统计推断在心理学理论争鸣与建构、心理技术产品开发与评估具体领域应用做了分析。     

口语产生中的认知年老化及其神经机制

综述了口语产生的认知年老化现象及其认知神经机制, 总结了年龄因素对口语产生各阶段的影响及认知机制, 主要从从舌尖效应、同音词的图片命名及其启动效应等方面进行了阐述。在此基础上阐述了关于口语产生认知年老化的理论：激活不充分假说、传递不足假说和抑制不足假说, 从不同角度对认知年老化进行了分析。总结了采用fMRI和ERP技术所进行的口语产生认知年老化过程的认知神经科学研究, 概括了其认知神经机制及其发生的时间进程, 重点阐述了舌尖效应发生的神经机制。最后, 从“认知年老化”和“口语产生”这两个研究领域, 对口语产生认知年老化的研究提出了展望。     

自我监控性作为性别助长效应的干涉变量

采用双手调节器操作任务进一步验证“性别助长”假设。20个自我监控者与20个我行我素者(男女各半)分别按抵消顺序接受两种实验处理：男性观众和女性观众。结果表明,异性观众可以助长男性被试的操作速度,而削弱女性被试的操作速度;对于作业效绩也存在着同样的交互作用;自我监控性是性别助长效应的一个重要干涉变量,男自我监控者表现出明显的异性助长,女自我监控者表现出明显的异性抑制,而我行我素者没有表现出明显的观众效应。由于自我监控性对相应的异性效应有一种放大作用,可知性别助长效应的基础是以印象管理动机为主。     

为什么会出现“舌尖现象”?——TOT现象发生机制之争

舌尖现象(tip-of-the-tongue,TOT)是一种普遍发生的现象,但是发生TOT的对象、情景、机制等却是特殊和复杂的。因此,它引起了研究者的关注,尤其是在其产生机制上更是存在着很多争论。国外研究者提出了部分激活理论、传递缺陷理论、障碍物假说、神经网络模型、元认知理论等。但研究者大多都基于单一条件或情景来探讨TOT的产生,因此提出的理论的使用范围,解释广度等均有局限。关于TOT依然有许多疑惑,同时也存在值得探讨的课题。     

进化心理学视角下的智力研究

进化心理学和差异心理学是心理学的两个分支。进化心理学认为智力是一种进化的适应。差异心理学中智力是个体差异变量。本文试图整合二者的观点。认为智力既是进化的适应,也是个体差异变量。这将启示进化心理学家去研究更广范围的心理特质,允许智力研究和差异心理学运用进化心理学的理论和概念。本文还介绍了与智力进化相关的热带草原法则和Kanazawa的Savanna—IQ互动假说。     

Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability

This study investigated gender differences in creativity among 985 schoolchildren (499 boys, 486 girls) by analyzing both means and variability. A relatively new creativity test, the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP), was employed to gain a more refined understanding of gender differences in creativity using a gestalt approach. Whereas the results of analyses of means generally supported the Gender Similarities Hypothesis, the variability analyses tended to support the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis and the Gender Difference Hypothesis. Analyses of the TCT-DP subscales revealed that both genders have their relative strengths and weaknesses in creative thinking. Whereas girls outperformed boys in thoroughness of thinking, boys outperformed girls in boundary-breaking thinking. Variability analyses further showed that more boys clustered in the two extremes of the composite score. Significantly greater variability was found for males on five criteria of the TCT-DP. The educational implications of such a complex pattern of gender differences are discussed. With a view to searching for an explanation for gender differences, several lines of further research are proposed.     

One country,two cultures: Implicit space–time mappings in Southern and Northern Vietnamese

What determines how people implicitly associate the “past” and “future” with “front” and “back”? According to the Temporal Focus Hypothesis (TFH), people's cultural attitudes toward time influence their implicit space–time mappings. However, previous research mainly used cross‐cultural comparison in which the cultures compared differ not only in attentional focus on temporal events, but may also differ in other cultural values. Thus, the specific role of cultural attitudes toward time has not been tested. In the current study, we compared Southern and Northern Vietnamese who have many aspects in common but demonstrate cultural differences in attitudes toward the past and future. The results showed that the two groups of participants tended to think about time according to their temporal focus. Taken together, this pattern of results showed that within‐cultural differences in temporal focus can also predict variation in space–time mappings, which provides further supporting evidence for the TFH.     

Competing Explanations and Explaining-Away Arguments

An “explaining-away argument” [EAA] aims to discredit some explanatory hypothesis by appealing to the explanatory power of an alternative hypothesis. Nietzsche's genealogical argument against theism and Darwin's case against Paley's “old argument of design in nature” are famous examples. In order for EAAs to have their negative force, they must satisfy several conditions. After clarifying these conditions, I focus in on one in particular: the two hypotheses in question offer potential explanations that compete with one another. I develop a formal account of what it takes for potential explanations to compete, and I use this account to argue that EAAs are often misapplied today. This is due to the fact that philosophers often fail to appreciate the subtle line dividing competing from non-competing explanations.     

Can Affect Disengagement Produce Moral Standard Violation?

Bandura has suggested that people can escape the self-regulatory power of internalized moral standards by disengaging the standards, allowing violation. We consider the possibility that disengaging the emotional warning signs of impending self-censure may be sufficient to permit violation. To test this idea, we led some research participants to misattribute to a pill (actually a placebo) any feelings of tension and anxiety evoked by the prospect of violating their standards of fairness. As predicted, participants in the misattribution condition were more likely to self-favor than those in a no-misattribution condition. This effect was mediated by the amount of tension and anxiety attributed to the pill. The role that affect disengagement may play in moral decisions outside the laboratory is discussed.