Freedom and Rationality as Predictors of Cross-National Happiness Patterns: The Role of Income as a Mediating Variable

Freedom and rationality have traditionally been viewed as essential ingredients to the 'pursuit of happiness'. Previous research has found that the way in which happiness is linked to freedom and other attributes of individualistic society is affected by the income level. This paper formulates a structural model of the linkage between political freedom, rationality, and happiness which takes explicit account of income as a mediating variable. Since income is hypothesized to be linked to the degree of freedom and rationality prevailing in a society, this approach permits to distinguish between direct and indirect linkages of happiness to freedom and rationality. Estimating the model with cross-national data yields the following key findings: (1) Happiness is positively related to freedom as well as to rationality at high freedom/rationality levels and negatively at low levels. (2) Whereas freedom affects happiness only indirectly (through its impact on income), rationality has both direct and indirect effects on happiness.     

中学生个性因素及其与学业成就关系的探讨

研究者基于个性对个体成功具有重要影响的观点,假设中学生的个性对其学业成就具有预测性。采用儿童14种人格因素问卷对145名初中生进行测试,并对14种人格变量进行因素分析,得到了自我控制能力因素、精神状态因素、合作与创新精神因素、社会能力因素和智力性因素等5个因子。再利用这5个因子与学生的期末成绩(语、数、外总成绩)进行全纳回归分析,结果发现:与非智力的个性因素相比,智力性因素对中学生的学业成就可以进行更为有效的预测。     

中学生学业成就归因与学习动力的相关研究

用自编问卷对913名中学生学业成就归因和学习动力状况进行了调查,发现: (1)整体上看中学生较多使用内在原因和可控原因解释自己的学习成绩; (2)不同性别和不同年级学生有不同的归因倾向; (3)归因倾向与学习动力有明显联系,使用因子分析法得到“自挫因子”对学习动力有很大的消极影响。本文还就如何进行归因训练进行了讨论。     

同伴团体对儿童青少年学业成就和社会功能关系的影响

运用同伴评价、教师评估和学校记录等多种渠道收集关于同伴团体、社会功能、同伴接纳以及学业成就的资料,旨在考察同伴团体与儿童青少年学业成就和社会功能的关系。研究发现：绝大多数儿童青少年都有自己的同伴团体。这些同伴团体在学业成就上有很高的同质性。学业成就与社会适应无论在团体内的个体水平还是在团体水平上都密切相关。而且,团体的学业表现是个体学业成就和社会适应间的重要调节因素,表明团体学业规范对个体水平上学业成就与社会功能的关系有增强或是减弱的作用。这项研究再一次证明同伴团体在儿童个体发展中的重要意义。     

Reinhold Niebuhr's Paradox: Groundwork for Social Responsibility

This paper is an examination of Reinhold Niebuhr's embrace of the paradoxical in relation to his conception of the self. While it explores the theoretical and practical difficulties entailed in Niebuhr's account, it also seeks to defend his position, suggesting that in the light of Niebuhr's negative apologetic, the paradoxical self represents the only intelligible means of self–understanding available. Though Niebuhr never develops this epistemological ground, it may provide a way of avoiding the moral consequentialism to which Niebuhr appears to be resigned. The resulting framework points toward moral pragmatism, retaining its orientation and relevance in the midst of deliberations concerning means and ends.