The situated person: Effects of construct accessibility on situation construals and interpersonal perception

Three studies examined the interrelationship between primed constructs, situation construal, and person perception. Previous research on priming and person perception has generally neglected the situational context. We predicted that when rich situational information is included, primed constructs can lead to assimilation effects on situation construals, which can in turn lead to contrast effects in person perceptions. Study 1 demonstrated that when situation information is included in the experimental context, primes lead to contrast in person perceptions. Study 2, employing a subliminal methodology, demonstrated that these effects could not be accounted for via previous explanations of contrast effects, such as correction-based mechanisms, that require overt recognition of the priming stimuli by the participants. Study 3 demonstrated that the contrastive effects of the priming stimuli on person perception obtained in Studies 1 and 2 are in fact due to the intervening assimilative effects of the priming stimuli on situation construal—that is, the primed constructs led to contrast effects on perceptions of the actor via their assimilative effects on perceptions of the situation in which that actor was embedded. Additionally, moderator variables demonstrated that this effect is most pronounced when the target actor’s behavior is described as relatively unambiguous or situation focus is increased.     

Physicalism as an attitude

It is widely noted that physicalism, taken as the doctrine that the world contains just what physics says it contains, faces a dilemma which, some like Tim Crane and D.H. Mellor have argued, shows that “physicalism is the wrong answer to an essentially trivial question”. I argue that both problematic horns of this dilemma drop out if one takes physicalism not to be a doctrine of the kind that might be true, false, or trivial, but instead an attitude or oath one takes to formulate one’s ontology solely according to the current posits of physics.     

看与思的方式：在意会与言传之间——医学人文困境与反思

一方面,在现象层面,反映的是人对自身生命尚缺乏应有的理解与有效掌控;另一方面,在药物技术的医事背后,反映的是医学的深层社会问题,即：医学关注的与真实生命需要的是否吻合？医学能做的与人希望的是否一致？医学是否需要反思未来走向？     

论医务社会工作中的价值观冲突和伦理困境

医务社会工作遵循着社会工作专业的一般价值观和伦理守则,并在此基础上,发展出其特有的价值观和职业伦理。对医务社会工作实践中的价值冲突和伦理困境及解决这些难题的指导原则等问题进行探讨,以期使医务社会工作者对工作实践中可能遇到的相关问题有初步的认识,并为他们在行动决策时提供参考和借鉴。     

Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation

The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). This problem is known as the discursive dilemma (or paradox). The discursive dilemma is a serious problem since it is not clear whether a collective outcome exists in these cases, and if it does, what it is like. Moreover, the two suggested escape-routes from the paradox—the so-called premise-based procedure and the conclusion-based procedure—are not, as I will show, satisfactory methods for group decision-making. In this paper I introduce a new aggregation procedure inspired by an operator defined in artificial intelligence in order to merge belief bases. The result is that we do not need to worry about paradoxical outcomes, since these arise only when inconsistent collective judgments are not ruled out from the set of possible solutions.     

Eye Movements in Strategic Choice

In risky and other multiattribute choices, the process of choosing is well described by random walk or drift diffusion models in which evidence is accumulated over time to threshold. In strategic choices, level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models have been offered as accounts of the choice process, in which people simulate the choice processes of their opponents or partners. We recorded the eye movements in 2 × 2 symmetric games including dominance‐solvable games like prisoner's dilemma and asymmetric coordination games like stag hunt and hawk–dove. The evidence was most consistent with the accumulation of payoff differences over time: we found longer duration choices with more fixations when payoffs differences were more finely balanced, an emerging bias to gaze more at the payoffs for the action ultimately chosen, and that a simple count of transitions between payoffs—whether or not the comparison is strategically informative—was strongly associated with the final choice. The accumulator models do account for these strategic choice process measures, but the level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models do not. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

CNI模型在道德决策研究中的应用

道德决策是指个体面临两种或两种以上道德观或道德需求之间的冲突时, 对行为和行为结果进行利弊权衡并做出最终选择。道德两难困境是研究道德决策的经典范式, 而传统道德两难困境范式受到诸多质疑, 道德两难困境的不现实性及缺乏有效指标量化功利论和道义论倾向, 无法对道德决策进行准确解释。针对传统道德两难困境范式不足, 道德决策CNI模型通过多项式建模的方法, 分别计算个体对结果(Consequences)的敏感性、对道德规范(moral Norms)的敏感性以及个体的行为反应偏好(Inaction versus action), 能够更清晰的识别影响道德决策的重要因素。未来研究应围绕影响道德决策的其他因素、道德情境的生态效度以及跨文化适用性等方面继续完善CNI模型, 并进一步探索道德决策的潜在心理机制。     

Can Rawls’ Constructivism Avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma? In Reply to Shafer-Landau

In this essay, I consider two challenges implicit in Russ Shafer-Landau’s criticism of constructivists: the realism challenge and the relativism challenge, respectively. I do not try to offer a decisive set of objections to the challenges; instead I argue that some objective versions of constructivism, especially Rawls’s constructivism, are not susceptible to the criticisms.     

The Ethics of Opinion in Academe: Questions for an Ethical and Administrative Dilemma

If we accept that all plagiarism is wrong, the issue is black and white. But are there more challenging questions that color the issue with shades of gray that may influence or help clarify the ethical underpinnings of the act? Does intent matter? Does the venue matter? Does the form of writing matter? What about a professor when working as a private citizen, rather than in his/her academic role? Might plagiarism be mitigated when there is no associated financial gain? Is a writer’s history that exhibits impeccable ethical integrity relevant? Should these factors, and/or other factors, even be considered in a university’s administrative response — or non-response? What might employing an ethical approach contribute to wrestling with the dilemma? The authors explore critical issues that might face a senior academic administrator when confronting the need to respond on behalf of a university to a charge of plagiarism leveled by an influential newspaper against a university professor for a social responsibility-focused opinion-editorial published in this newspaper.     

乞讨的伦理分析——从乞讨作为一种手段与一种生活方式的自愿选择相区别的角度

乞讨已经成为一种社会问题,乞讨在当代中国的泛滥对社会的政治、经济、文化和社会生活都带来了比较大的冲击,在如何对待乞讨和乞讨者的问题上存在着很多的分歧,其中价值观的矛盾及其所引起的道德困境构成了对乞讨现象争论的焦点。我们必须把乞讨作为一种手段和乞讨者对一种生活方式的自愿选择区别开来。如此才能对乞讨之中手段和目的的关系、乞讨者和施舍者之间的关系、乞讨者和管理部门之间的关系进行恰当的道德定位,并为处理乞讨问题提供依据。