艾滋病污名的形成机制、负面影响与干预

艾滋病污名主要包括实际污名、感知污名和自我污名, 这些不同形式的污名给艾滋病患者带来了精神上的痛苦、社会资源的剥夺等一系列的负面影响。归因理论、社会文化理论和道德理论分别从社会心理学、社会不平等和文化道德的角度阐述了艾滋病污名的形成机制。从这些机制出发, 减少艾滋病污名可以结合接触假设、知识传播以及认知行为疗法, 并注意改变艾滋病患者的自身观念。未来的艾滋病污名研究应更多地从社会文化以及道德的角度进行跨文化的量化研究。     

专家记忆优势效应理论的比较

依据专家记忆优势效应三个主要理论 (即模板理论、长时工作记忆理论和限制调节理论 )的不同特点选取变量 ,以中国象棋为实验材料 ,采用 2× 2× 2× 2混合设计 ,对三个理论进行检验比较。研究发现 :(1)被试在记忆棋局条件下的包含测验成绩 ,优于选择着法条件下的 ;(2 )棋局与棋手水平之间不存在显著的交互作用 ;(3)棋局与提取时的意识水平之间存在显著的交互作用 ,对局中的外显效应大于排局中的外显效应 ,而棋局的内隐效应则无显著差异。上述结果表明 ,相对而言 ,长时工作记忆理论能够对专家记忆优势效应作出合理的解释     

婚姻冲突与儿童问题行为关系研究的理论进展

大量研究指出婚姻冲突与儿童问题行为紧密相关,但在二者关系的解释上有不同观点。其中代表性的理论有社会学习理论、间接作用观点、认知-背景理论和情绪安全假设等。文中详细介绍了4个理论的基本观点并分析了其优缺点。综合这些理论,作者在理解婚姻冲突和儿童问题行为时应该坚持如下3个观点:第一,系统和生态的观点;第二,主客体相互作用的观点;第三,情感和认知并重的观点。     

Cultural Complexities and Scientific Development

Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical change concerning the widespread use of methodologies that has been typical of mainstream psychology, which still flavors too positivist and pseudo-quantitative, overlooking the central relevance of theory for scientific development. The divergence resides in Toomela's insistence to oppose what he designates as "the North American" to "the German-Austrian" scientific thinking: from my perspective, the misuse of cultural categories can only lead to misguided and unconstructive dichotomies that entails a naive concept of culture, and do not contribute to scientific development. From a contemporary systemic approach, complex issues deserve more sophisticated analysis.     

How to help: Can more active behavioral measures help transcend the infant false-belief debate?

The use of looking time procedures for the claim that infants understand other's false-beliefs has drawn criticism. In response, Buttelmann, Carpenter, and Tomasello (2009) have argued for the use of a more active behavioral measure involving children's willingness to help others. However, the current study challenges Buttelmann et al.’s response on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Theoretically, Buttelmann et al. take a mindreading framework for granted and are thus committed to the same type of “rich” interpretations that have accompanied infant looking procedures more broadly. Methodologically, the current study challenges Buttelmann et al.’s interpretation that children were using the adult's false-belief to determine how to help in this paradigm. To test our alternative perspective, mentalistic and non-mentalistic interpretations of preschooler's helping behavior were compared. In the original study, the adult's false-belief was conflated with the playing of a trick. When these two factors were separated, children's helping behavior was not consistent with the adult's false-belief. Second, when the situation was characterized in terms of a hiding scenario (instead of playing a trick), older children altered their helping behavior accordingly. Together, these results provided evidence that children in the active-helping paradigm did not use the adult's false-belief to determine how to help and that the broader social situation is an important variable for understanding other's actions. In conclusion, the use of more active behavioral measures alone does not resolve the controversy that has played out with respect to infant looking procedures. Instead, any adequate methodological modifications must be accompanied by theoretical considerations as well.     

Worn out relationship? The role of expectations in judgments of relational boredom

This study examined the role of growth and security expectations in shaping people's judgments of relational boredom and conflict (for discriminant validity). In Studies 1 and 2, the type of expectation gaps (growth vs. security) in hypothetical relationships (as well as the occurrence of a gap in Study 2) was manipulated, and people's judgments of relational boredom and conflict were assessed; Study 3 assessed these associations in people's own relationships. Across all studies, people were more likely to diagnose boredom in other people's relationships (Studies 1 and 2) and their own relationship (Study 3) if the expectation gap for growth (vs. security) was greater. People reported more conflict in their own relationship if the expectation gap for security (vs. growth) was greater.     

自动驾驶车中的人机信任

自动驾驶是当前智能汽车发展的重要方向。在实现完全自动化驾驶前, 驾驶员和自动驾驶系统共享车辆控制权, 协同完成驾驶任务。在该人-机共驾阶段, 人对自动驾驶系统的信任是影响自动驾驶中人机协同效率与驾驶安全的关键要素; 驾驶员对自动驾驶车辆保持适当的信任水平对驾驶安全至关重要。本研究结合信任的发展阶段与影响因素提出了动态信任框架。该框架将信任发展分为倾向性信任、初始信任、实时信任和事后信任四个发展阶段, 并结合操作者特征(人)、系统特征(自动驾驶车系统)、情境特征(环境)三个关键因素分析不同阶段的核心影响因素以及彼此间的内在关联。根据该框架, 信任校准可从监测矫正、驾驶员训练、优化HMI设计三类途径展开。未来研究应更多关注驾驶员和人机系统设计特征对信任的影响, 考察信任的实时测量和功能特异性, 探讨驾驶员和系统的相互信任机制, 以及提升信任研究的外部效度。     

在什么情况下员工会汇报差错?基于秘密分享视角

差错在工作场所中并不鲜见, 然而有关差错诊断的研究相对匮乏。基于此, 以员工主动差错汇报为切入点, 分析影响员工差错汇报的因素。结合秘密分享框架, 提出差错特点(差错严重性与可见性)对员工的焦虑感、反刍和汇报责任感产生正向影响; 而焦虑感、反刍和汇报责任感会促使员工采取差错汇报行为, 由此上述个体感知中介差错特点与差错汇报之间的关系; 此外, 个体责任心、领导容错性以及团队心理安全会作为边界条件进一步影响上述员工犯错后的感知, 并最终影响其差错汇报行为。     

损失-收益框架下责任感对建议采纳的影响

实验1和实验2分别探讨了在损失-收益框架下特质责任感和状态责任感对建议采纳的影响。结果发现：（1）无论是特质责任感还是状态责任感,高责任感的个体比低责任感个体更倾向于采纳他人建议。（2）收益框架下的个体比损失框架下的个体更愿意采纳他人建议。（3）无论是特质责任感还是状态责任感,高责任感的个体对他人建议的采纳程度不受框架的影响,而低责任感个体在收益框架下比在损失框架下的建议采纳程度高。     

Effects of Reward Structures on Academic Performance and Group Processes in a Classroom Setting

Researchers have suggested that cooperative, intergroup competitive, and individualistic reward structures result in different patterns of academic performance and group processes. In this study, we investigated these relationships in an undergraduate business school setting. A reward structure was manipulated across four separate classes, and outcomes were measured using self-reports of group effectiveness, academic performance as graded by instructors, and peer evaluations from group members. The results indicated that group effectiveness was rated significantly higher under the cooperative and no-reward conditions compared to the intergroup competitive reward condition. Peer evaluations in the intergroup competitive condition were significantly lower then those under the other three conditions.