FOK判断等级及其准确性的实验研究

通过实验集中控制了ＦＯＲ判断等级及其准确性的影响因素。实验以中文字串为学习材料,使用组内设计的实验方法研究了被激活信息的量和强度对ＦＯＤ等级及准确性的影响。实验结果表明：ＦＯＫ判断的等级是由被激活信息的总量决定;的,和被激活信息的正确与否无关;ＦＯＤ判断的准确性是由被激活信息的强度决定的;且二者是在内联系的。     

Multitrait Multimethod validation of Implicit Association Test as a measure of individual differences in personality: Is there personality at all?

The objective of the study was to investigate the validity of IAT in the assessment of the Big five personality traits. We employed the Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) approach on a sample of 146 respondents. We collected measures on IATs assessing Big five personality traits, self-reports, and two ratings of close others of different gender on NEO PI-R. Additionally, we assessed behavior related to the Big five personality traits in a structured interview where three experts independently provided rating measures. MTMM analyses suggest that personality IAT measures have little in common with personality traits measured traditionally using explicit methods. The evidence does not support the claim that personality IAT can serve as a valid measure of individual differences in personality traits.     

Children's Ideas About What Can Really Happen: The Impact of Age and Religious Background

Five- to 11-year-old U.S. children, from either a religious or secular background, judged whether story events could really happen. There were four different types of stories: magical stories violating ordinary causal regularities; religious stories also violating ordinary causal regularities but via a divine agent; unusual stories not violating ordinary causal regularities but with an improbable event; and realistic stories not violating ordinary causal regularities and with no improbable event. Overall, children were less likely to judge that religious and magical stories could really happen than unusual and realistic stories although religious children were more likely than secular children to judge that religious stories could really happen. Irrespective of background, children frequently invoked causal regularities in justifying their judgments. Thus, in justifying their conclusion that a story could really happen, children often invoked a causal regularity, whereas in justifying their conclusion that a story could not really happen, they often pointed to the violation of causal regularity. Overall, the findings show that children appraise the likelihood of story events actually happening in light of their beliefs about causal regularities. A religious upbringing does not impact the frequency with which children invoke causal regularities in judging what can happen, even if it does impact the type of causal factors that children endorse.     

Measuring metaaesthetics: Challenges and ways forward

A growing body of psychological research seeks to understand how people's thinking comports with long-standing philosophical theories, such as whether they view ethical or aesthetic truths as subjective or objective. Yet such research can be critically undermined if it fails to accurately characterize the philosophical positions in question and fails to ensure that subjects understand them appropriately. We argue that a recent article by Rabb et al. (2020) fails to meet these demands and propose several constructive solutions for future research.     

Two Models of Moral Judgment

This paper compares two theories and their two corresponding computational models of human moral judgment. In order to better address psychological realism and generality of theories of moral judgment, more detailed and more psychologically nuanced models are needed. In particular, a motivationally based theory of moral judgment (and its corresponding computational model) is developed in this paper that provides a more accurate account of human moral judgment than an existing emotion‐reason conflict theory. Simulations based on the theory capture and explain a range of relevant human data. They account not only for the original data that were used to support the emotion – reason conflict theory, but also for a wider range of data and phenomena.     

A high implicit affiliation motive does not always make you happy: A corresponding explicit motive and corresponding behavior are further needed

Satisfaction of the implicit affiliation motive is known to be positively related to emotional well-being, whereas the frustration of the implicit affiliation motive leads to impairment of well-being. In the present research we specified two conditions that are responsible for the satisfaction and frustration of the implicit motive. Referring to research on the congruence of implicit and explicit motives, we assumed that a corresponding explicit affiliation motive leads to satisfaction of the implicit motive. Corresponding affiliation behavior constitutes the second condition. Three studies confirmed the hypothesis that both conditions must be fulfilled in order to positively connect the implicit affiliation motive to emotional well-being. Participants with high implicit and explicit affiliation motives and who additionally showed a large amount of affiliation behavior reported the lowest negative affectivity and the highest life satisfaction compared to participants who lacked one of the conditions.

Anchoring effects on performance judgments

Three studies were conducted investigating the effects of irrelevant anchors on performance judgments. Both a lab and field study demonstrated that an alternative anchoring manipulation that did not involve an explicit comparative question had effects on performance judgments similar to a traditional anchoring manipulation. The final study examined whether the anchoring effects were more likely when the anchor was highly applicable to the final judgment. The results indicated that both highly applicable and low applicable anchors produced an anchoring effect, but the highly applicable anchors had a larger effect on performance judgments. Evidence was also found for asymmetrical anchoring effects. In two of the three studies, high anchors increased performance judgments relative to the control group, whereas low anchors were not significantly different from the control group.     

The difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral concerns in social decision making

In social decision making, punishing non-cooperation and rewarding cooperation may not only affect cooperation because of instrumental reasons. They may also evoke moral concerns regarding cooperation as they signal that cooperation is socially approved of and non-cooperation socially disapproved of. I argue that punishments do this to a greater extent than rewards as punishments communicate an obligatory rule and rewards communicate a voluntary rule. Indeed, the first experiment shows that, in a social dilemma, the concept of punishment increased cooperation and the concept of a reward did not. The second experiment showed that participants showed more disapproval towards an offender when there was a punishment for non-compliance than when there was a reward for compliance. These findings suggest that punishing non-cooperation more strongly foster moral concerns regarding cooperation than rewarding cooperation. Possible implications for internalizations are discussed.