中国人人格特质结构对合作的影响机制

采用调整后的公共财物范式,将合作分为内部准备阶段（合作意识）和外部表现阶段（合作行为）,以中国人人格问卷（QZPS）为工具,研究人格特质结构对合作不同阶段的影响机制。结果表明,（1）在合作的不同阶段,产生影响作用的人格特质因素不同。中国人人格特质中的善良和情绪性直接影响合作意识,行事风格与人际关系因素直接影响合作行为,外向性通过调节合作意识与合作行为的关系影响合作行为。（2）在考虑合作意识与人格特质交互作用的模型能够更好的解释和预测合作行为。文中讨论了在研究合作过程时从个体内部因素、特质以及外部情境等多角     

公交行业一线员工人格特质对工作绩效影响的实证分析--以工作态度作为调节变量

通过问卷调查法,探讨在工作态度调节下大五人格特质与工作绩效的关联。对1277名公交行业一线员工的研究结果表明：(1)人格特质与工作绩效有显著的相关,工作态度在这一关系中起到调节作用。在高工作态度中,人格特质与任务绩效联系较为紧密,工作绩效的良好预测指标是尽责性和外向性;在低工作态度中,人格特质与关系绩效联系较为紧密,工作绩效的良好预测指标是宜人性和外向性。(2)在高工作态度的环境中,人们更看重工作的完成;在低工作态度的环境中,人们更看重关系的协调。工作态度调节着人格特质对工作绩效的影响。     

青少年大五人格对网络成瘾的影响:家庭功能的中介作用

目的:探究家庭功能在人格特征与网络成瘾之间的中介作用。方法:973名中学生被试完成基本人口学问卷、网络成瘾量表、人格五因素问卷、家庭功能评定量表。结果:(1)人格特征可以显著预测网络成瘾。其中,情绪性人格可以显著正向预测网络成瘾,责任心、宜人性显著负向预测网络成瘾。(2)家庭功能在情绪性、责任心对网络成瘾的影响具有部分中介作用、在宜人性对网络成瘾的影响具有完全中介作用。结论:在治疗中,可针对网络成瘾者的家庭功能进行积极干预,从而减轻其成瘾症状。     

双性化大学生人格特征研究

通过对北京市某所大学826名大学生的调查,探讨性别、性别角色类型和新性别角色类型对大学生人格特征的影响。结果表明：1）双性化性别角色类型大学生约占1／4;2）用贝姆的分类方法,双性化大学生在开放性、宜人性、责任感、和谐性、人情、灵活性人格特征上均高于其他性别角色类型的大学生,可见,双性化性别角色大学生具有较积极的人格特征。按照Brenda Mae Woodhill和CurtisA．Samuels的分类方法,在外向性、开放性、宜人性、责任感、和谐性人格特征上,正性双性化性别角色类型的大学生均高于负性双性化大学生和其他性别角色类型的大学生。     

Effectiveness of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder in an inpatient setting

This study evaluates the effectiveness of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) in an unselected, comorbid population seeking 3-month inpatient treatment. We studied 50 consecutively admitted individuals (44 women, six men) with BPD as defined by DSM-IV at three time points (at admission, at discharge, and at the 15-month follow-up). For the clinical diagnoses, we used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) and compared the frequencies of comorbid axis I and axis II disorders at admission and at the 15-month follow-up. Overall, participants showed a high degree of comorbidity. Psychopathology was significantly reduced at post-treatment and at follow-up. Effect sizes for outcome measures were within the range of those of previous studies. Our findings support the notion that the results of the DBT efficacy research can be generalized to an inpatient setting and to patients with BPD disorder with high comorbidity.     

Terminated Seed: Death,Proprietary Kinship and the Production of (Bio)Wealth

What is mental disorder and how can it be identified? These are complex and multifaceted questions, given the multiple ambiguities that centre on the psychopathological concepts employed within contemporary psychiatry and psychology. Yet, scientists investigating mental disorders must successfully resolve these uncertainties if research is to continue. For neuroscientists studying the contested conditions antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, psychiatric and psychological classifications and concepts are used to substantiate one another. This co-produces epistemological and ontological un/certainties, without wholly resolving philosophical and methodological questions regarding what mental disorders are and how they can be recognised. Indeed, these ambiguities are rendered (relatively) unimportant. This kind of practical uncertainty work is thus an important aspect of the investigative process, performing an essential role in the continuation of scientific knowledge production, the legitimation of professional orientations, and the validation of psychopathological concepts.     

There must be a First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite,Essentially Ordered,Causal Series

Several of Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God rely on the claim that causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. Because he holds that effects are ontologically dependent on their causes, he holds that the relevant causal series are wholly derivative: the later members of such series serve as causes only insofar as they have been caused by and are effects of the earlier members. Because the intermediate causes in such series possess causal powers only by deriving them from all the preceding causes, they need a first and non-derivative cause to serve as the source of their causal powers.     

A Cybernetic Theory of Psychopathology

Abstract

Cybernetics, the study of principles governing goal-directed, self-regulating systems, offers a useful approach to understanding psychopathology or psychological dysfunction, overcoming limitations of other naturalistic approaches. Whereas influential theories of psychopathology have relied on definitions of dysfunction rooted in evolution and fitness, we define psychopathology in terms of cybernetic dysfunction, failure to make progress toward important goals. Cybernetic function in organisms is not identical to evolutionary function, despite their causal phylogenetic relationship. We define psychopathology as persistent failure to move toward one’s goals, due to failure to generate effective new goals, interpretations, or strategies when existing ones prove unsuccessful. This definition allows a thorough integration of dimensional approaches to psychopathology and personality and provides a new perspective on the nosology of mental disorder. We review evidence that the major dimensions of psychopathology correspond to major trait dimensions of personality, but we assert that extremity on these dimensions is neither necessary nor sufficient for psychopathology, which requires cybernetic dysfunction. Drawing from psychological and neurobiological research on personality and psychopathology, we present a theory of the mechanisms underlying the five major dimensions of psychopathology, some of their subdimensions, and the general risk factor for psychopathology. We conclude by discussing implications of our theory for research, diagnosis, and mental health interventions.     

Misconstruing methods and meaning in the General Factor of Personality

Research has suggested that a General Factor of Personality (GFP) might represent a real and meaningful higher‐order factor in the personality hierarchy. However, there are psychometric shortcomings in many of the studies used to support this argument, as well as convincing empirical evidence for alternative explanations of the GFP as methodological rather than meaningful. The current article re‐examines the research supporting a substantive GFP by considering and evaluating the evidence presented in a recent volume (Just, 2011). It is concluded that covariation among first‐order personality factors is more likely a statistical or methodological artefact than a theoretically meaningful higher‐order construct.