Promoting perspective coordination by dilemma discussion. The effectiveness of classroom group discussion on interpersonal negotiation strategies of 12-year-old students

Promoting social competence and social cognition is an important aim of education and socialization. According to theories of social cognitive and moral development, social cognition may be promoted by adolescent peer interaction. In this study, social cognition is theoretically conceptualized by the interpersonal negotiation strategies model of Selman which distinguishes levels of perspective coordination and steps of information processing (identification of a problem, generating negotiation strategies, selection of a strategy, evaluation). In a pre-post control group design this study investigated whether dilemma discussions among peers lead to higher individual levels of perspective coordination compared to an individualistic condition. Members of the discussion-condition exhibited higher gain scores in perspective coordination compared to the control group regarding the information processing steps generating strategies and strategy selection. In order to analyze verbal interaction in the discussion groups, an integrative coding schedule was developed. In addition, trait-like argumentative motives of the participants were assessed. The results of multilevel analyses suggest that progress in posttest-perspective coordination is mediated by the groups consensual solution of the dilemma as well as by an explanation-oriented discussion style, but only if the latter is accompanied by a trait-like subject- and consensus-oriented argumentative motive. Theoretical and practical conclusions are drawn.     

Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective

Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses.     

个人—组织匹配的研究现状与展望

个人—组织匹配主要探讨个人和组织之间的相容性以及实现这种相容性的前提和结果。个人与组织可能以附助或补偿的方式形成匹配。尽管在操作指标的选择上,研究者们没有达成共识,但他们的研究结论都同样体现了个人—组织匹配在员工的组织进入、工作态度、离职意向、工作压力、亲社会行为、工作绩效和组织文化培训等方面的管理价值。展望该领域的进一步研究,自我报告的研究方法以及高水平匹配的益处是令人质疑的,匹配的评估指标也亟待明确。     

Reciprocal and complementary sibling interactions,relationship quality and socio‐emotional problem solving

Associations between reciprocal and complementary sibling interactions, sibling relationship quality, and children's socio‐emotional problem solving were examined in 40 grade 5–6 children (M age = 11.5 years) from middle class, Caucasian, Canadian families using a multi‐method approach (i.e. interviews, self‐report questionnaires, daily diary checklist, narrative task). Findings demonstrated that reciprocal sibling interactions were positively associated with warmth, mutual esteem, happy daily exchanges, and negatively related to rivalry and dominance, whereas complementary interactions were positively related to upsetting daily exchanges. Further, reciprocal and complementary interactions differed significantly in relation to several relationship qualities, with reciprocal interactions emerging as a significantly stronger correlate of happy exchanges. Only reciprocal interactions were positively correlated with socio‐emotional problem solving. Finally, birth order moderated the negative association of reciprocal interactions with rivalry and dominance and the positive association with socio‐emotional problem solving. In each case, the effect was stronger for younger members of the sibling dyad. Findings are discussed in light of recent theory on the sibling relationship and children's development. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Elementary schoolchildren know a logical argument when they see one

Both empirical data and theoretical approaches suggest that argumentation is an important component of development of reasoning skills. We argue that if argumentation does have a primary role, then children should be able to distinguish more from less logical justifications even when they are incapable of determining the correct conclusion by themselves. We asked 8- and 11-year-old children to choose one of two conclusions for abstract reasoning problems, based on justifications from authority (friends and teacher) or logical ones (probability and counterexamples). Although there was a clear age-related increase, even the younger children considered logical justifications to be better than authority, irrespective of the specific conclusion endorsed. Thus, children can distinguish logical and non-logical justifications even when they cannot easily arrive at the correct conclusion by themselves.     

Reasoning Is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation

Theoreticians of deliberative democracy have sometimes found it hard to relate to the seemingly contradictory experimental results produced by psychologists and political scientists. We suggest that this problem may be alleviated by inserting a layer of psychological theory between the empirical results and the normative political theory. In particular, we expose the argumentative theory of reasoning that makes the observed pattern of findings more coherent. According to this theory, individual reasoning mechanisms work best when used to produce and evaluate arguments during a public deliberation. It predicts that when diverse opinions are discussed, group reasoning will outperform individual reasoning. It also predicts that individuals have a strong confirmation bias. When people reason either alone or with like‐minded peers, this confirmation bias leads them to reinforce their initial attitudes, explaining individual and group polarization. We suggest that the failures of reasoning are most likely to be remedied at the collective than at the individual level.     

Predicting Psychologists' Intentions to Integrate Complementary and Alternative Therapies Into Their Practice

Drawing on an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) framework, we employed a cross‐sectional design study to investigate psychologists' intentions to integrate complementary and alternative therapies (CAT) into their practice via recommending CAT to clients or referring clients to CAT practitioners. Participants were registered practicing psychologists from a range of therapeutic orientations (e.g., narrative, cognitive behavioural, psychodynamic). The psychologists were either recruited by phone, following a search of the Internet, or were contacted through their place of employment (hospitals, university counselling service). Those who agreed to participate (N = 122; n = 88 females, n = 34 males) completed a questionnaire that included standard TPB items of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control, along with items measuring perceived risk, past behaviour, CAT knowledge, and gender. The outcome variables of interest were (a) intention to recommend CAT to clients and (b) intention to refer clients to CAT practitioners. Structural equation modelling revealed that the extended model was a good fit, explaining 69% (recommending CAT) and 51% (referring to CAT practitioners) of the variance in intentions. For both behaviours, direct paths from attitude and subjective norm to intentions were observed, with perceived risk and past behaviour influencing the TPB predictors of attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control. The findings illustrate the role that cognitive and risk factors have on psychologists' decisions to integrate CAT into their practice. Understanding psychologists' cognitions and decisions about CAT integration forms an important basis on which to consider future changes in policy or practice.     

Bio-necro-biblio-politics? Restaging feminist intersections and queer exceptions

This response to Jasbir Puar's Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (2007. Durham, NC: Duke University Press) proposes that, although it might seem a bit far afield for scholars within biblical studies, a range of conceptual interventions from this work could make striking contributions to this sub-discipline. Through further interaction with both exceptionalisms and intersectionalities, this response demonstrates the way that feminist, postcolonial and queer interrogations of biblical argumentation can also intervene, extend or reorient practices within cultural studies. The recurrence of exceptionalism reframes religious groups' claims to openness, while concerns over the deployment of intersectionality enable critical reflections on interdisciplinary projects such as religious studies and biblical studies as disciplines.