Plural signification and the Liar paradox

In recent years, speech-act theory has mooted the possibility that one utterance can signify a number of different things. This pluralist conception of signification lies at the heart of Thomas Bradwardine’s solution to the insolubles, logical puzzles such as the semantic paradoxes, presented in Oxford in the early 1320s. His leading assumption was that signification is closed under consequence, that is, that a proposition signifies everything which follows from what it signifies. Then any proposition signifying its own falsity, he showed, also signifies its own truth and so, since it signifies things which cannot both obtain, it is simply false. Bradwardine himself, and his contemporaries, did not elaborate this pluralist theory, or say much in its defence. It can be shown to accord closely, however, with the prevailing conception of logical consequence in England in the fourteenth century. Recent pluralist theories of signification, such as Grice’s, also endorse Bradwardine’s closure postulate as a plausible constraint on signification, and so his analysis of the semantic paradoxes is seen to be both well-grounded and plausible.

Opening Skinner’s Box: an Introduction

Behavior analysts have redefined the subject matter of psychology, redesigned the experiments used to study that subject matter, renamed almost every part of the world pertaining to that subject matter, and created specialized organizations and journals. It is not surprising, then, that only a happy few ever hear what behavior analysts say. One problem is that we need to publish outside of the box, so to speak. Preaching to the choir ensures that the products of our scientific behavior affect only a few people, limits the variety of reinforcers we are likely to encounter, and limits the likelihood that the products of our scientific behavior will reinforce the behavior of others. Publishing in a wider variety of outlets can lead to greater visibility for behavior-analytic research and practice, increase the impact of our published work, and build clout for scholars in colleges and universities.     

《周易》责任伦理思想浅析

本文以西方责任伦理理论作为参照,来诠释<周易>所蕴含的责任伦理思想,认为<周易>责任伦理意识的生成体现于责任主体对行为之不良后果的强烈忧患,<周易>对责任主体行为的调适以前瞻得到的后果为价值导向,<周易>通过对行为之不良后果进行积极转化而实现其责任伦理价值.     

幼儿对生气和伤心情绪倾向同伴的接受性比较

本研究通过生气-伤心两可情景,考察了116名4~6岁幼儿对生气和伤心倾向同伴的认知偏好,并通过二选一的封闭式访谈考察幼儿对生气和伤心情绪结果的理解,以反映幼儿的偏好原因。结果表明:①从认知上看,相比生气倾向的同伴,幼儿更偏好伤心倾向的同伴。②5岁、6岁组幼儿比4岁组幼儿更偏好伤心倾向的同伴。③在情绪结果理解上,幼儿认为生气引发他人更多的远离,伤心引发他人更多的目标恢复、道歉和趋近。可见,生气倾向的幼儿比伤心倾向的幼儿更不被同伴接受。     

Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures

Many public information documents attempt to persuade the recipients that they should engage in or refrain from specific behaviour. This is based on the assumption that the recipient will decide about his or her behaviour on the basis of the information given and a rational evaluation of the pros and cons. An analysis of 20 public information brochures shows that the argumentation in persuasive brochures is often not marked as such. Argumentation is presented as factual information, and in many instances the task of making argumentational links and drawing conclusions is left to the reader. However, since the information offered does follow familiar argumentational schemes, readers can, in principle, reconstruct the argument. All the brochures make use of pragmatic argumentation (argumentation from consequences),i. e.,they formulate at least certain benefits of the desirable behaviour or disadvantages of the undesirable behaviour. In addition, they make regular use of argumentation from cause to effect and argumentation from example. Argumentation from rules and argumentation from authority are less frequently used. This empirical analysis of the use of argumentation schemes is a solid base for interesting and rich hypotheses about the cognitive processing of persuasive brochures. Central processing requires the reader to be able to reconstruct argumentation from informational texts and to identify and evaluate various types of argumentation.     

无手机恐惧:我们为什么不能与手机分离?

无手机恐惧是一种由手机不在身边或无法使用手机所诱发的情境性焦虑。近年来,大量研究证实了无手机恐惧的普遍存在。相关理论从错失恐惧、手机依恋和自我扩展等视角解释了无手机恐惧发生的原因。综述以往的实证研究发现,无手机恐惧的发生会受到个体特征(人口学变量、人格特质等)和手机使用行为等多方面因素的影响;同时,无手机恐惧会对个体的认知与学业表现、问题性手机使用行为、压力感、心理健康、生活方式和睡眠等多方面产生消极影响。未来研究应厘清和完善无手机恐惧的结构与测量工具,拓展无手机恐惧的研究方法与手段,进一步探讨无手机恐惧的影响因素、后效及作用机制,并加强对无手机恐惧的干预研究。     

使命感的影响效果

使命感(calling)作为一个前沿主题, 近年来受到理论界和实务界的广泛关注。根据PRISMA申明推荐的文献搜索流程, 保留国内外使命感的影响效果相关文献, 对这些文献进行系统梳理和分析, 总结出使命感影响效果的三种变量类型：职业心理与状态、职业技能与能力以及职业过程与产出。未来研究应进一步探索使命感消极影响, 关注双刃剑效应; 分析使命感文化差异, 探讨跨文化比较效应; 构建使命感团队模型, 延伸研究层次; 追踪使命感变化, 构建动态模型。     

自我控制行为中的情绪因素

对冲动行为的控制及失控(放任)会产生不同的情绪结果,并形成两种自我控制的两难:失控后可能产生的愉悦与内疚、成功自控后可能产生的自豪与遗憾。自控行为-情绪结果的联结,使个体能自发地基于预期情绪选择当前行为。情绪预测会受到情境、个体差异等的影响,并有一定的误差。