试从"反哺"与"接力"看中西亲子关系

“反哺”和“接力”分别是中西方家庭中处理养老问题的两种不同模式,模式的区别也反映了中西方亲子关系的差异。导致这种差异的原因主要是中西方所处的社会发展阶段不同、中西方伦理价值观念的冲突等四个方面所致。在代际亲子观念的东西文化交流过程中,我们既要继续发扬我国尊老爱幼的优良传统,又要吸取西方重视代际亲子关系平等的合理因素,建立一个不分年龄、人人共享的和谐社会。     

Desired personality traits in politicians: Similar to me but more of a leader

What makes voters prefer a certain type of politician? First, we argue that voters’ trait preferences follow a “desired leadership” principle. We show that citizens want the ideal-type politician to be more emotionally stable, extravert-assertive, more deliberate-conscientious and open, more honest, but also somewhat more disagreeable than the average citizen. Second, we argue that voters prefer a model candidate with similar basic value-related personality traits. Importantly, we show that trait congruence is partly mediated by core ideological preferences and thus ensures democratic representation. The study’s findings have implications for personalization of politics and democratic representation, because personality traits can be vital cues for voters deciding whether candidates will act in their interest and represent them well.     

The Epistemic Criterion: A Response to Michael Hand

This article is a response to Michael Hand’s critique in this issue of my response to his use of the epistemic criterion as the sole means for identifying whether or not an issue should be identified as controversial. I argue that he has misunderstood my intention in suggesting that I was seeking to replace the epistemic criterion. Rather my purpose was to challenge his over-confidence in the decisiveness of reason and to temper his use of the epistemic criterion by suggesting it needed to embrace ethical concerns.     

Why Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Strike Back at Perceived Negativity Towards the In‐group?

Against the background of riots in communities across London in 2011, this paper examines the implications of negative meta‐stereotypes on stigmatized group members' reactions towards members of privileged out‐groups within their communities. We hypothesized that concerns over negative opinions that the dominant out‐group is expected to hold of the in‐group (i.e. meta‐stereotypes) would be negatively associated with group members' perceptions of societal fairness and that this relationship would be mediated by members' recall of personal experiences with discrimination. We further hypothesized that views about societal fairness that are challenged in this way would lower an inclination to express discontent with the status quo via normative means while at the same time, increase nonnormative expressions. Results from two surveys (study 1, N = 50; study 2, N = 132) provided support for these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their meaning for community relations. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Fairness of National Decision‐making Procedures: The Views of Adolescents in 18 European Countries

This study examines adolescents' evaluation of the fairness of three forms of democratic decision‐making procedures (direct democracy, representative democracy and group representation) and one non‐democratic procedure (oligarchy). Social dominance orientation‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E), religious group identification and the countries' level of democracy are examined as predictors. The 2008 Europroject dataset was used, which contained 4441 native majority adolescents (mean age = 16.1 years) in 18 European countries. Adolescents evaluated direct democracy as most fair, followed by group representation, representative democracy and oligarchy. This rank order was found independent of the issue under consideration (moral or social), and of SDO‐E and religious identification, and across the countries. In addition, adolescents scoring higher on SDO‐E and on religious identification found group representation and non‐democratic oligarchy fairer. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of voice and similarity on procedural fairness and trust: A dual process model of public acceptance based on representatives’ participation

In citizen participation, a few representatives of the total citizen population participate in discussions with authorities regarding public decisions and policies. The present study examines a dual process model in which the representatives’ voice and similarity of values facilitate public acceptance through procedural fairness and trust in representatives, respectively. The results of an experiment employing a scenario method, which included participants from Japan (n = 211) and the Netherlands (n = 200), indicate that the representatives’ voice increased procedural fairness and public acceptance when the similarity of representatives was high. The effects of representatives’ voice on public acceptance via procedural fairness was supported in both nations, while other effects of representatives’ similarity on acceptance via trust were indicated only in Japan. These results suggest that the indirect voice of citizens, as conveyed by representatives, plays an important role in increasing perceptions of procedural fairness and public acceptance among citizens.     

The Social Determinants of Health: Why Should We Care?

A growing body of empirical research examines the effects of the so-called “social determinants of health” (SDH) on health and health inequalities. Several high-profile publications have issued policy recommendations to reduce health inequalities based on a specific interpretation of this empirical research as well as a set of normative assumptions. This article questions the framework defined by these assumptions by focusing on two issues: first, the normative judgments about the (un)fairness of particular health inequalities; and second, the policy recommendations issued on this basis. We argue that the normative underpinnings of the approach are insufficiently supported and that the policy recommendations do not necessarily follow from the arguments provided. Furthermore, while many of the policies recommended—such as improving people's living conditions and reducing inequalities in wealth and power—are justified in their own right, the way these recommendations are tied to health is problematic.     

他人财富情绪:妒忌的社会评估比较与认知加工分析

妒忌是指意识到自己缺乏他人更优越的品质、成就或所有物而产生的自卑、敌意和怨恨等混合情绪,妒忌者渴望得到妒忌目标的优势或希望妒忌目标失去优势。作为一种指向他人财富的复杂情绪,善意妒忌和恶意妒忌会引发不同的行为结果,这主要取决于个体对他人财富的认知评估过程。妒忌通常由向上的社会比较而产生,社会事件应得性、主观公平感、核心自我评价等认知都会对妒忌产生影响。本文从社会比较判断、认知加工过程和神经生理功能等角度来分析妒忌的产生过程和认知机制。基于现有不足,未来的研究可以在妒忌情绪的发展特征、妒忌体验的测量方法和妒忌功能的分化等方面进一步完善。     

最后通牒博弈中提议者情绪预测偏差对公平决策的影响:公平感知的作用

为探讨提议者情绪预测偏差对公平决策的影响以及其中介机制,采用了两轮最后通牒博弈提议者实验任务,第一轮测量分配方案被接受和拒绝的情绪预测偏差,第二轮测量提议者的分配方案。研究结果表明:(1)提议者情绪预测偏差影响公平决策;(2)公平感知在提议者情绪预测偏差与公平决策间起部分中介作用。研究认为,提议者对积极结果的情绪预测偏差,会降低其公平感知,进而降低其分配方案公平性; 提议者对消极结果的情绪预测偏差,会提高其公平感知,进而增加其分配方案公平性。