早中期青少年未来规划的发展及其与父母教养行为的关系：行为自主的中介效应*

采用追踪设计,以948名初中和高中学生为被试,在考察早中期青少年对教育和职业领域的未来规划发展特点的基础上,探讨了父母教养行为对青少年未来规划的预测作用以及青少年行为自主在其中的中介效应。结果表明：(1)在两次测量中,中期青少年的教育探索水平增长,早期青少年的教育探索变化不显著;早期青少年的职业探索和投入水平均高于中期青少年。(2)父母的接纳/参与能正向预测青少年当时及以后对教育和职业的探索和投入;父母的严厉/监督仅能正向预测青少年当时的教育探索和投入。(3)行为自主在父母的接纳/参与对青少年未来规划的预测中起部分中介效应。     

社会认同对集体行动的作用：群体情绪与效能路径*

为探究多元社会认同如何通过群体情绪、自我和群体效能路径,影响现实或网络集体行动参与,研究者分别以中日撞船事件、利比亚事件和就业性别歧视现象为背景蓝本,开展问卷调查和实验研究,结果发现：群体愤怒情绪主要对现实集体行动有显著影响,效能感对现实和网络集体行动皆有显著影响;与事件相关的、更大范畴的社会类别认同,通过情绪路径或效能路径影响集体行动参与,与集体行动组织方的认同则只通过效能路径影响集体行动参与;两类社会认同与两条路径之间是调节而非中介关系。不同事件背景与不同行动场域下的综合分析表明网络集体行动参与决策更具工具理性特征。     

外化行为问题与集体道德情绪、集体责任行为之关系：班级氛围的调节效应*

采用调查法,随机选取上海市3所普通中小学四、六、八、十年级的755名学生为被试,探讨班级氛围在外化行为问题与集体道德情绪、集体责任行为关系间的调节作用。结果表明：(1)男生的外化行为问题显著高于女生,其感知的班级氛围显著低于女生。而男、女生集体道德情绪与集体责任行为的性别差异不显著;(2)学生感知的班级氛围随年龄的增长先下降再上升,八年级时最低;集体道德情绪和集体责任行为随着年级的增高而呈下降趋势,小学生(四、六年级)的集体道德情绪和集体责任行为得分均比中学生(八、十年级)高,高一(十年级)学生的得分处于最低水平;(3)外化行为问题与集体道德情绪、集体责任行为的关系受班级氛围的调节。与消极的班级氛围相比,积极的班级氛围能够弱化外化行为问题与集体道德情绪、集体责任行为的负向关联。结果揭示了积极的班级氛围对外化行为问题学生具有一定的保护作用,有助于改善这些学生的社会适应能力。     

The role of self-aspects in emotions elicited by threats to physical health

In two studies, we examined the relationship between self-aspects and socially engaging and socially disengaging emotions elicited by imagined and real physical health problems. In Study 1, participants imagined themselves experiencing a health problem described in a hypothetical scenario and rated the extent to which they would experience a list of emotions. The experience of socially engaging emotions such as shame and embarrassment was predicted by the endorsement of collective self. In Study 2, participants recalled a past health problem and emotions they experienced during its course. Again, collective self predicted the extent to which people mentioned socially engaging emotions in their free recall of emotions. Independent self was not related to the imagined experience of socially disengaging emotions in Study 1 or the recollection of such emotions in Study 2.     

Future Contradictions

A common and much-explored thought is ?ukasiewicz's idea that the future is ‘indeterminate’—i.e., ‘gappy’ with respect to some claims—and that such indeterminacy bleeds back into the present in the form of gappy ‘future contingent’ claims. What is uncommon, and to my knowledge unexplored, is the dual idea of an overdeterminate future—one which is ‘glutty’ with respect to some claims. While the direct dual, with future gluts bleeding back into the present, is worth noting, my central aim is simply to sketch and briefly explore an alternative glutty-future view, one that is conservative—indeed, entirely classical—with respect to the present.

The structure of the paper runs as follows. §1 briefly sketches the target gap picture of an indeterminate future yielding gappy claims at the present. §2 presents the direct dual idea—a glut picture of an overdeterminate future yielding glutty claims at present. §3 sketches the central idea, a more interesting glut picture in which the future contains contradictory states but the present remains entirely classical. §4 contains a general defence of the idea, leaving it open as to whether the gappy-future view enjoys substantive virtues over the proposed glutty-future view of §3.     

The im-possibility of secular critique: The future of religion's memory

The legacy of secular critique, with its Greek, Christian, Kantian, modernist traces, constitutes an aporetic law (or contradiction). That law is this: a critical legacy, if it is critical, can affirm and sustain itself only by trying to separate it from itself (from the very crisis that it is). The legacy or history of ‘religion’ is always a history of such critique. Such a legacy always anticipates critiquing itself, its memory (of whatever kind – racist, sexist, colonialist, nationalist). Such a legacy of critique is always a legacy of crisis. However, the crisis of such a legacy cannot be resolved, because critique, as kairos/krisis (critical/decisive moment), can admit of no resolution. Yet the (secular) history of religion, if it is ever historical, can only be a history of such aporetic critique. Such an aporetic critique will be the heritage of religion's im-possible ¹ ?1. I write the word impossible/impossibility with and without a hyphen. When I hyphenate im-possible, I do so to remain true to Derrida's use of it. The im-possible is irreducible to either possibility or impossibility. Sometimes Derrida also writes the word without hyphenating it, but he still implies such irreducibility. future. It is an im-possible future because it will always be a promise, a promise to separate it from itself, a promise that will remain always deferred, always to come. Today, the promise of this secular critique is (in) democracy with its sovereign ‘decisive’ politics. We can no longer simply critique the (future) legacy of religion, understood this way. To do so is to fulfil that legacy's own messianic wish. This is the aporetic limit of secular critique. To think at the limits of the legacy of the critique of religion is to think the very question of the (secular) history of ‘religion’ and its others, that is, ‘religions’.     

协作抑制的认知机制

协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少.心理学研究者致力于从认知角度对该现象进行解释,主要的理论解释有提取策略破坏假说和提取抑制假说.前者认为小组成员的提取结果对组内其他成员的信息组织策略产生了干扰,导致小组的提取成绩低.而后者认为小组内成员的提取结果会抑制其他成员对非提取项目的表征,降低小组协作提取能力,出现协作抑制.本文对两种理论假说的提出背景,基本观点,证据支持及现有争论进行了介绍,同时指出了未来的研究应关注于对两种机制的关键矛盾点进行区别性检验、对不同认知机制在不同条件下成立可靠性的检验以及通过对编码阶段进行操控来进一步考察协作抑制的认知机制.     

Unintentional collective action

In this paper, I examine the manner in which analyses of the action of single agents have been pressed into service for constructing accounts of collective action. Specifically, I argue that the best analogy to collective action is a class of individual action that Carl Ginet has called ‘aggregate action.’ Furthermore, once we use aggregate action as a model of collective action, then we see that existing accounts of collective action have failed to accommodate an important class of (what I shall call) ‘unintentional collective actions.’     

Positive psychology: Past,present, and (possible) future

A survey study and two experiments were done to test the hypothesis that social flow is more enjoyable than solitary flow. In the survey study it was found that recalled social flow experiences were rated more enjoyable than solitary flow experiences. In the first experiment when challenge and skill were the same across social and solitary conditions, social flow was reported to be more enjoyable than solitary flow. In the second experiment when the level of social interdependence was manipulated it was found that participants in highly interdependent teams reported more joy in flow than individuals performing less interdependently. In both experiments, people playing simple paddleball games reported and expressed more joy performing with others than alone. Taken together, the three investigations support the conclusion that doing it together is better than doing it alone. Solitary flow, while quite enjoyable, is not as enjoyable as social flow.