心算对内外倾者的心率、T波幅度和呼吸频率的影响

该文旨在探讨内、外倾者在三种不同难度心算时,心率、Ｔ波幅度、呼吸频率变化的差异。通过艾森克个性问卷筛选出１５名内倾者和１５名外倾者作为被试,让其完成三种不同难度的心算任务。实验结果表明,心算时两组被试心率均显著上升,内倾组上升幅度大于外倾组;Ｔ波幅度显著降低,内倾组降低幅度大于外倾组但差异不显著;呼吸频率显著上升,但两组上升幅度差异不显著。此外,从心率变化上看,两组被试对心算均表现出适应,内倾组的适应速度比外倾组慢。本实验表明,焦虑性精神紧张比智力操作性精神紧张对心率的影响更大。     

经典氧债学说研究进展

Hill和 Margaria等依据乳酸代谢动力学特征对氧债现象所作的理论解释曾统治对该问题的研究长达半个世纪 ,然而 ,采用新的测试技术研究发现 ,经典氧债学说至少在以下三个方面与当代生理学研究有明显的冲突 ,即氧亏与氧债的关系、乳酸与氧耗的一致性和乳酸转变为肌糖。本文就上述研究进行简要回顾。     

Construct validity of the Sivik Psychosomaticism test and test of Operational style: Correlations with four Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subscales

To evaluate the construct validity (convergent and divergent) of the Sivik Psycho Somaticism test (SPS) and test of Operationality (OPER), Pearson correlation coefficients between SPS scales and subscales, OPER and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subscales Hypochondria (Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy) and Alexithymia (Al) were calculated. Eighty-eight healthy individuals and 285 psychosomatic patients completed the SPS and OPER tests and MMPI; Hs, D, Hy and Al. The results show that most of the SPS subscales and OPER are significantly correlated to several MMPI subscales in both a normal and a psychosomatic population. The results are in concordance with the theoretical hypotheses and confirm the validity of the SPS and OPER constructs.     

中国人的印象整饰特征及其影响因素初探

本研究探讨在中国文化背景下．一个人如何表现他自己,即强凋社会的和谐与人际关系的融洽,即印象整饰过程。旨在揭示中国人的印象整饰特征及其影响因素,从而增进对特定文化背景下的中国人的心理和行为模式的理解。结果揭示了２个独特的中国人的印象整饰特征：社会道德维度与人际关系维度。     

Failed back surgeries and minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) profiles

MMPI profiles were evaluated for 105 prospective surgical patients who had previously undergone surgery or other procedures for treatment of back pain. Patients were classified into groups having undergone zero, one, two, three, or four or more previous surgeries. While all groups demonstrated a characteristicsomatogenic profile, none of the MMPI validity or clinical scales significantly differentiated the groups and there was no relationship between increased number of surgeries and MMPI scale characteristics. These results support the nonoptimistic prognostication of thesomatogenic MMPI profile for surgical intervention for back pain but show no clear relationship of MMPI profile characteristics to degree of experience of previously failed surgery.     

"Perhaps it would be better not to know everything."

The advent of statistical methods for evaluating the data of individual-subject designs invites a comparison of the usual research tactics of the group-design paradigm and the individual-subject-design paradigm. That comparison can hinge on the concept of assigning probabilities of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Individual-subject designs are usually interpreted with implicit, very low probabilities of Type 1 errors, and correspondingly high probabilities of Type 1 errors, and correspondingly high probabilities of Type 2 errors. Group designs are usually interpreted with explicit, moderately low probabilities of Type 1 errors, and therefore with not such high probabilities of Type 2 errors as in the other paradigm. This difference may seem to be a minor one, considered in terms of centiles on a probability scale. However, when it is interpreted in terms of the substantive kinds of results likely to be produced by each paradigm, it appears that the individual-subject-design paradigm is more likely to contribute to the development of a technology of behavior, and it is suggested that this orientation should not be abandoned.     

A reexamination of the faithful subject role

Fillenbaum (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 532–537; Fillenbaum & Frey, Journal of Personality, 1970, 38, 43–51) has proposed that a relatively large number of subjects within certain experiments will adopt a faithful subject role, that is, they will intentionally avoid basing their behavior on any suspicions they may have regarding the experimenter's hypothesis. However, examination of the studies on which this conclusion was based casts doubt on whether Fillenbaum's subjects were truly faithful or whether they may have become aware of the nature of the deception after all opportunity for awareness to influence their responses had passed. To test this hypothesis, awareness measures were administered to subjects either before they took an incidental learning test or (as in Fillenbaum's studies) after the test. As predicted, fewer subjects were classified as faithful in the first condition than in the second. It was concluded that, in fact, very few if any subjects are actively faithful. Discussion also concerned the problems associated with role analyses of subject behavior.