累积家庭风险与贫困儿童情绪问题的关系:有调节的中介模型

对468名贫困家庭儿童（平均年龄=13.76±2.88岁）进行问卷调查,探究累积家庭风险与贫困儿童情绪问题的关系以及学校联结的中介效应与自尊的调节效应。结果发现：（1）累积家庭风险能正向预测贫困儿童情绪问题;（2）学校联结在累积家庭风险和情绪问题之间起中介作用,即累积家庭风险可影响贫困儿童的学校联结,进而导致儿童情绪问题;（3）自尊在中介的前半路径“累积家庭风险→学校联结”路径上起调节作用。具体而言,自尊可以缓冲低累积家庭风险对学校联结的影响,但随着累积家庭风险水平的增高,自尊的缓冲作用也在逐渐减弱和丧失,符合“杯水车薪”调节模式。研究结果提示,累积家庭风险和学校联结均是贫困儿童情绪问题的重要预测因素。与此同时,对贫困儿童高自尊的保护作用可能不宜过分乐观。     

累积创伤对儿童复杂性创伤后应激障碍的影响：经验回避与消极认知情绪调节策略的中介作用

为探讨儿童的累积创伤与复杂性创伤后应激障碍(CPTSD)的关系机制,研究以方便取样法选取河南省7所小学的3478名4~5年级、有创伤经历的儿童为被试,采用创伤经历核查表、抑郁的行为激活问卷、认知情绪调节问卷和国际创伤问卷进行测试。结果发现:(1)累积创伤、经验回避、消极认知情绪调节策略和CPTSD之间具有显著相关性,且累积创伤能够显著正向预测CPTSD;(2)经验回避和消极认知情绪调节策略在累积创伤和CPTSD之间起显著的中介作用。具体为:一是经验回避的中介作用;二是灾难化的中介作用;三是经验回避-自责、经验回避-沉思、经验回避-灾难化的链式中介作用。因此,减少创伤事件的发生,激活儿童行为,调整消极认知情绪是改善和预防儿童CPTSD的重要途径。     

Teaching by Convincing: Strategies of Argumentation in Lectures

The aim of this article is to show the argumentative component in the discourse of teachers. This is done on the basis of an analysis of the argumentative strategies used by teachers during the first class of a university course in order to increase their discourse efficiency. The analysis of the corpus studied shows that in such a session teachers use argumentative strategies in order to control the social distance which separates them from students. In doing so, they make a double movement, one of distancing and one of approximation, with the aim of achieving a balance which permits them to consolidate their authority in the eyes of the students and, at the same time, present an accessible and well-disposed image to them.     

How Not to Criticise Scientism

This paper argues that the main global critiques of scientism lose their punch because they rely on an uncharitable definition of their target. It focuses on epistemological scientism and divides it into four categories in terms of how strong (science is the only source of knowledge) or weak (science is the best source of knowledge) and how narrow (only natural sciences) or broad (all sciences or at least not only the natural sciences) they are. Two central arguments against scientism, the (false) dilemma and self-referential incoherence, are analysed. Of the four types of epistemological scientism, three can deal with these counterarguments by utilizing two methodological principles: epistemic evaluability of reliability and epistemic opportunism. One hopes that these considerations will steer the discussion on scientism to more fruitful pastures in the future. For example, there are interesting methodological considerations concerning what evaluability or reliability and epistemic opportunism entail.     

Critical Legal Studies and argumentation theory

Critical Legal Studies poses a direct and expressed challenge to the basic tenets of American legal education and scholarship. Critical Legal Studies postulates that law is not a scientific exercise involving the application of objective principles, but rather a creative process involving the selection of conflicting rules which has the effect of reinforcing the existing political order. In an effort to explain the contribution of Critical Legal Studies to argumentation theory, this essay briefly discusses the role of legal reasoning in the American legal system, describes and critiques Legal Positivism, lays the intellectual foundation for Critical Legal Studies, and considers the implications that this conception of jurisprudence has for argumentation theory.     

累积生态风险与初中生受欺凌的关系模式：心理弹性的调节效应

采用整群抽样法对重庆等7省市24所中学3879名初一、初二和初三年级学生进行问卷调查,以考察累积生态风险与初中生受欺凌的关系模式,并探讨心理弹性在其中的作用。结果表明:(1)累积生态风险显著正向预测初中生受欺凌水平,呈现“负加速模式”,即随着累积生态风险的增加,新增风险因素对受欺凌的影响越来越小;(2)心理弹性对受欺凌的保护作用随着累积生态风险的增加而削弱,呈现“保护-反应”的调节子模型。研究结果为开展针对性地干预受欺凌提供了实证依据。     

累积环境风险与大学生自伤的关系:情绪调节策略的作用

通过两个子研究分别考察累积环境风险与大学生自伤行为间的关系模式,并探讨注意分散与认知重评两种情绪调节策略对高风险大学生自伤意图的缓解作用。研究1在1066名大学生中采用问卷调查,探索累积环境风险对大学生自伤行为的作用及模式。基于研究1的结果,研究2选取符合高风险背景的62名大学生为被试,采用实验室实验对两种情绪调节策略的作用予以考察。本研究结果表明：累积环境风险对男女大学生自伤行为均有显著的正向作用,且均符合非线性“正加速模式”,但男生群体随累积风险数量增加而引发的自伤行为增长速度明显快于女生。对于高环境风险背景下的大学生,注意分散和认知重评两种策略均能降低其自伤倾向性与自伤认同,但不能降低其自伤意念。这提示应重视对经历了高环境风险的大学生进行情绪调节策略等方面的干预,以减少其采取自伤行为的倾向性。     

Educational Background,Modes of Discourse and Argumentation: Comparing Women and Men

This paper analyses the way in which discourse and argumentation may vary depending on participants educational level and gender. Men and women from three different educational levels (literacy, advanced level and university students) participated in discussion groups that debated about women and work, the sharing of housework and the way in which girls and boys are educated. The results showed important differences depending on participants educational level and gender. In general, the main differences were related to educational level, while gender tended to interact with educational level, as a moderating factor.     

Culture and collective argumentation

What are the mechanisms underlying the reproduction and change of collective beliefs? The paper suggests that a productive and promising approach for dealing with this question can be found in ontogenetic and cross-cultural studies on ‘collective argumentations and belief systems’; this is illustrated with regard to moral beliefs: After a short discussion of the rationality/relativity issue in cultural anthropology some basic elements of a conceptual framework for the empirical study of collective argumentations are outlined. A few empirical case studies are summarized; the results deliver some empirical evidence to the assumption that as the ‘logic of collective argumentations’ develops in children and adolescent there will be different and increasingly more complex constraints on the kinds of basic moral beliefs that can be collectively accepted. Most importantly, as children approach adolescence they may have acquired a ‘logic of argumentation’ which makes possible a collectively valid distinction between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ of some disputed particular moral issue. A comparison with a land litigation among Trobriands (Papua New Guinea) shows that the ‘logic of argumentation’ and the corresponding basic moral beliefs of Trobriands very much resemble the ‘logic of argumentation’ and moral rationality standards of (German) adolescents.