Justice and Civic Friendship： An Aristotelian Critique of Modern Citizenry

Modem moral and political theorists make a sharp separation between justice and civic friendship, arguing that justice deals with the fair terms of co-operation in the social sphere whereas civic friendship is about an individual＇s contingent affections in the political domain. In addition, they also argue that the principles of justice must determine the nature and function of civic friendship in modem liberal society. Even though the historical origin of the above view can be traced to the writings of Immanuel Kant （2007）, John Rawls provides us with its most cogent formulation in recent times. In his book A Theory of Justice （1971）, Rawls argues that the considerations of right are prior to the considerations of good; therefore the principles of justice must determine the limits of civic friendship. Against RaMs, I argue that justice and civic friendship are intrinsically connected and that they cannot be separated in experience. I draw upon Aristotle＇s theory of virtue to strengthen my arguments. Following Aristotle, I show that both justice and friendship are virtues and that all virtues hold together. The Aristotelian coherence of virtues, I argue, can be useful in redefining the obligations of justice and civic friendship in contemporary liberal democracies.     

创新氛围、创新效能感与团队创新：团队领导的调节作用

在团队层次探讨创新氛围、创新效能感以及团队领导对团队创新绩效的影响。对51个工作团队的研究结果表明, 团队创新氛围与团队创新绩效有显著的正向关系, 而团队创新效能感在这一关系中起到中介作用。同时, 引领创新的团队领导调节了创新效能感与团队创新绩效之间的关系, 团队领导越倾向于引领创新, 创新效能感与创新绩效之间的关系就越强, 经由创新效能感传导的创新氛围对创新绩效的效应也就越大。研究结果深刻揭示了创新氛围、创新效能感、创新领导和团队创新之间的关系。     

变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响：心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用

通过对国内一家企业共785位员工及其直接主管的问卷调查, 考察了下属心理资本在变革型领导与下属工作绩效及满意度之间关系的中介作用以及程序公平对该关系的调节作用。研究结果显示：1)下属的心理资本与其工作绩效和满意度正向相关; 2)下属的心理资本部分中介了变革型领导对下属工作绩效及满意度的正向关系; 3) 下属的程序公平调节了变革型领导对下属心理资本的影响。具体而言, 下属的程序公平感越高, 变革型领导与下属心理资本的正向关系越强, 反之越弱; 4) 进一步地, 程序公平调节了下属心理资本对变革型领导－工作绩效和满意度的中介作用, 即：程序公平感越高, 变革型领导通过心理资本对下属的工作绩效和满意度所产生的作用就越强, 反之越弱。最后讨论了该研究的理论意义和应用价值。     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

权力线索

权力线索指人们判断权力所依赖各种信息,其能预测人们的思维和行为。除以视觉刺激和听觉刺激的形式直接影响人们的权力感知外,权力线索也可利用人们对其在空间和数字上的心理表征,间接影响人们的权力判断。各种权力线索的具体效应仍存争议。为此,学者已开始关注现有线索去伪存真、分类和标准化等问题,还从生理视角对其加以验证,并探求新的权力线索     

组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响:组织公平和组织认同的中介作用

以353名乡村中小学教师为样本,采用结构方程模型等统计方法,分析了组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响,以及组织公平和组织认同的中介作用。结果表明：（1）组织政治知觉与乡村教师离职意向之间存在显著正相关,组织政治知觉与组织公平之间存在显著负相关;组织公平与组织认同之间存在显著正相关;组织认同与乡村教师离职意向之间存在显著负相关。（2）组织公平和组织认同在组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响中起双重中介作用。     

Authorities’ knowledge of shared group membership and its effects on the respect-informing properties of procedural fairness

We observe that the voice-leads-to-respect process underlying relational models of procedural fairness is assumed to follow primarily if not solely from interaction with an in-group authority. Moreover, if the voice recipients believe that the authority is unaware of this shared group membership, then the provision of voice actually says nothing (to the voice recipients) about their standing as group members; the respect-providing information as valued in-group members is absent because the recipients know that the authority does not know of their shared group membership. We tested these assumptions in a three-way design manipulating the group membership of the authority (in-group vs. out-group), the nature of voice (provided vs. denied) and the nature of group membership knowledge (the authority knows or does not know the voice recipient’s group membership). A significant three-way interaction was found, as predicted, on respect and fairness ratings. These data provide clear experimental support for an unstated, and yet untested, assumption of relational models of procedural fairness.     

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or not they were granted or denied voice in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed that the effects of voice versus no-voice on fairness-based perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions were significantly more pronounced for individuals with proself orientations than for individuals with prosocial orientations. These findings were extended in Study 4, a field study in which perceived procedural justice was a stronger predictor of satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors among proselfs than among prosocials. These findings suggest that procedural justice effects can be accounted for by self-oriented motives or needs, rather than prosocial motives that are often conceptualized as being associated with justice.     

ISLAM AND BIOETHICS

Muslim theologians, jurists, and healthcare workers have been addressing the challenges of modern biotechnology for years. Major textbooks on religion and bioethics cover Islam in one or two articles, offering only a general introduction to these important discussions. The five articles in this issue of the Journal of Religious Ethics, originating from a conference at Pennsylvania State University, are unusual in the specificity of their topics—brain death, feeding tubes, sex selection, spiritual counseling, and organ transplantation—and in their engagement with complex discussions in the Muslim and non‐Muslim worlds. In this essay, I introduce the five articles and consider two larger implications: the changing definition of the human person in light of biotechnological advances and the continuing importance of religious traditions, especially Islam, in legitimizing ethical responses to these advances.     

Duties and Responsibilities Towards the Poor

Thomas Pogge has argued that we have strong negative duties to assist the global poor because we harm them through our contribution to the global economic order. I argue that Pogge’s concept of harm is indeterminate. The resources of any group will typically be affected by at least two economic schemes. Pogge suggests that the responsibility for any affected group’s shortfall from a minimum standard ought to be shared between the contributing schemes. I argue that shared responsibility can be interpreted in two different ways. Unfortunately, both interpretations are problematic. Lastly, I suggest a strategy for amending this problem.