突发事件中民众责任归因的心理需求与应对

突发事件发生后,通过责任归因对事件原因和责任归属进行推断是民众心理活动的重要特征之一。从民众心理需要来看,突发事件带来的不确定感驱使个体寻找事件的解释来实现认知闭合,控制感的不足则会让个体更加强调外部世界的秩序性,这两种需要也是事件中阴谋论传播和替罪羊效应的心理基础。相应地,在事件中负有责任的组织主体,也应当基于民众的心理需要采取适当的应对策略,来重塑组织形象和民众的信任,避免责任规避带来的负面效应。未来研究可以进一步从心理学视角补充整合性的实证证据,对突发事件的不同类型进行区分,关注责任归因与其他社会心理学变量之间的联系,以及探索适合中国社会的有效应对措施。     

《周易》的“生态学”解读——从“还原”的角度

对于《周易》的研究,当代学者已从人文、象数、哲学乃至科学等角度进行解读,并取得了丰硕的成果。事实上,作为"天人之学"的《周易》蕴含了丰富的生态思想,其对生命的重视,对人与自然关系的认定乃至"与天与一"的宇宙观皆凸显了深层的生态关怀。无疑,在环境日益恶化的当下,回归经典寻求智慧不失为一种有益的探索。     

Quantized Linear Logic,Involutive Quantales and Strong Negation

A new logic, quantized intuitionistic linear logic (QILL), is introduced, and is closely related to the logic which corresponds to Mulvey and Pelletier's (commutative) involutive quantales. Some cut-free sequent calculi with a new property quantization principle and some complete semantics such as an involutive quantale model and a quantale model are obtained for QILL. The relationship between QILL and Wansing's extended intuitionistic linear logic with strong negation is also observed using such syntactical and semantical frameworks.     

《周易》象理无隔视野下的船山经学观

王船山学宗张载,以易学为入路构建起形上学体系。他从易学最基本的象理问题出发,提出了“《易》之全体在象, 象理一体无隔”的易学基本理念,并据此导出“即象以见理”的易学方法论。他以此象理无隔的易学视野和方法来统摄《六经》,进一步得出了“《五经》皆象,《易》统其理”的经学观,并主张治经要以训诂为根基,以义理为标的,从而使他的经学呈现出汉宋兼采并治的学术特色。     

归纳推理心理效应的研究

归纳推理心理效应指的是归纳论断中各种因素对个体做出归纳结论时把握性（力度）大小的影响,根据影响因素的不同,主要可分为类别效应、属性效应和交互效应三种。文章认为,个体通常会采用分割－综合方式判断归纳力度大小,并且在归纳判断中形成的推理序列及由此造成的顺畅感直接影响着归纳力度的估计,作者还提出了对此模型的一种证明     

Priming productive study strategies with preparatory quizzes in an engineering course

One approach to encourage productive study strategies is to incorporate preparatory quizzes (or pre‐quizzes) in which students are required to submit answers to questions before the underlying material is covered in class. In the present study, students took an introductory mechanical engineering class that either included pre‐quizzes (treatment group) or did not (control group). Students in the treatment group visited the online textbook more often and earlier in advance of deadlines, indicating better management of their study time—behaviors that have been shown to be productive study strategies. They also performed better in the course, indicating that techniques intended to prime productive study strategies can pay off. Finally, measures of productive learning strategies correlated with measures of course performance for both groups. These findings support the pretesting principle, which holds that students study more effectively and learn better when they take practice tests before a lesson.     

The rhetorical foundation of philosophical argumentation

The rejection of rhetoric has been a constant theme in Western thought since Plato. The presupposition of such a debasement lies at the foundation of a certain view of Reason that I have called propositionalism, and which is analyzed in this article. The basic tenets of propositionalism are that truth is exclusive, i.e. it does not allow for any alternative, and that there is always only one proposition which must be true, the opposite one being false. Necessity and uniqueness are the ideals of propositionalism. But the question of the necessity of such a necessity is bound to arise. Foundationalism and propositionalism are intrinsically related. Since necessity excludes alternatives, rhetoric, which is based on the possibility of opposite standpoints, is unavoidably devalued as the crippled child of Reason, identical to sophistry or eristic. But propositionalism cannot justify itself and provide a justification for its own foundation without circle or contraditction. Since it responds to the problem of eradicating problems and alternatives through propositional entities, propositionalism is ultimately based on questioning to which it replies in the mode of denial. The unavowed foundation of Reason is therefore the question of questioning, even though this very question is suppressed as propositionalism. The trace of such a question is not only historical, but can also be seen, for instance, in the role played by the principle of contradiction in the constitution of propositional Reason (Artitotle): opposite propositions are not the expression of a problematic situation, they are either possible or successively unique propositions.We want to replace propositionalism by problematology which allows for the conceptualization of alternatives, thereby rendering a true rhetoric possible. Argumentation cannot then be equated with eristic any more, as propositionalism maintained.Rationality must be seen as having questioning as its true starting-point. Reason must be rhetorical if it is to survive the death of propositionalism which took place after the radical criticisms of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Even if it is still hard ffor philosophers and rhetoricians to think within another framework and even though they prefer endlessly to deconstauct the old one instead of changing it, problematology is bound to impose itself as the new voice for rationality, because Reason has always endeavored to solve problems. Propositionalism has been only one way of conceiving problems, based on the view that solutions could be but the suppression of questioning.     

CAN SCIENCE AND RELIGION RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

With the challenge of communicating climate science in the United States and making progress in international negotiations on climate change there is a need for other approaches. The moral issues of ecological degradation and climate justice need to be integrated into social consciousness, political legislation, and climate treaties. Both science and religion can contribute to this integration with differentiated language but shared purpose. Recognizing the limits of both science and religion is critical to finding a way forward for addressing the critical challenges of climate change. How we value nature and human–Earth relations is crucial to this. We need a broader environmental ethics in dialogue with the science of climate change.     

Global Distributive Justice

The paper discusses the problem of global distributive justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of distributive justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of distributive justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's "duty of assistance to burdened societies" cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of distributive justice.     

不确定是坏的么?不确定状态中的错误加工特点及其解释机制

错误是人类决策和行为过程中在所难免的。然而, 错误常常带来不利后果甚至危及生命(如高危作业时的失误)。如何有效监控错误并优化行为对于个体生存和发展至关重要。错误的发生受到内部心理状态影响, 个体常在不确定的情境中做出判断, 不确定状态增强还是削弱错误监控, 是一个重要科学问题, 却存在矛盾结果。在前期积累和理论分析基础上, 本项目拟从人格差异角度探索不确定容忍度的调节作用。不确定容忍度的差异意味着个体对于模糊情境的耐受性和错误的敏感性不同, 因而可能调节不确定状态中的错误加工过程。研究1采用行为实验, 揭示多种不确定情境中(如奖赏/惩罚)错误监控和错误后调整的认知特点, 考察不确定容忍度的调节作用; 研究2通过考察电生理表征、时间加工进程和神经振荡机制等进一步解释这些现象。本项目对于探明不确定状态中的错误加工规律及其人格调节机制具有重要理论价值, 对于促进个体的环境适应、目标达成等具有较好现实意义。