From gains to losses: Age-related differences in decisions under risk in a non-monetary gambling task

Lifespan theory suggests a shift from a primary orientation towards attaining gains in young adulthood to preventing losses in older adulthood. The current research tested if this motivational shift is reflected in behavioural and emotional responses to risks in non-monetary gains and losses. Study 1 established in a sample of N = 168 younger (18–30 years) and older adults (65–79 years) that a non-monetary gambling task was experienced similarly by the age groups with respect to arousal and valence of the task, and the willingness to continue playing. In Study 2 (N = 83), differences between young (18–30 years) and older (64–85 years) adults’ risk-taking in this non-monetary gambling task with mixed gambles were tested while assessing physiological responses (event-related heart rate change) to gain and loss feedback. Behavioural – but not physiological – results confirm hypotheses derived from a lifespan motivational framework regarding age-differential effects of gains and losses.     

自主－受控动机效应及应用

自我决定论是一种新的动机认知理论,它将动机区分为自主动机和受控动机。由受控动机到自主动机是一个连续体。在这个连续体上依据自主程度的高低分布着5种不同类型的动机。大量的研究表明不同类型动机之间存在不同的效应。而在实际应用中,要实现由受控动机向自主动机的转化,自主支持的环境是被证实的一个重要的因素。未来研究除了在研究方法上加以改进之外,在促进动机内化的具体应用研究方面还要进行更深入的探讨。而国内本土化研究则刚刚起步,有待于加强     

自我损耗、情绪动机对冲动决策的影响

以大学生为被试,探讨自我损耗、情绪动机对冲动决策的影响。采用2×2×2的混合实验设计,组内变量为自我损耗,组间变量为情绪动机方向和强度,使用双任务范式操作自我损耗,使用情绪动机图片启动被试的情绪动机,使用延迟折扣任务的指标k值测量冲动决策。结果发现,高趋近动机的k值大于低趋近动机,高回避动机的k值大于低回避动机。结果表明,自我损耗、情绪动机对冲动决策有明显影响。     

Lost in the great divide: Motivation in religious studies classrooms

One of the most illuminating finds in Barbara E. Walvoord's Teaching and Learning in College Introductory Religion Courses (2008) is what she calls “the great divide,” a mismatch between instructors’ goals for their courses, which are academic, and the students’ reasons for taking them, which relate to their personal interests and development. Motivation – or, rather, the lack thereof – is not explicitly considered as a potential victim of this mismatch. This article will turn its attention squarely to this issue. First, I will review data about the “great divide” and link them to the common practice of asking our students to bracket the personal when they take our courses. The article will juxtapose this practice with what research tell us about motivation, which will allow us to further explore why the divide Walvoord and others have identified is so problematic. The article will conclude with pedagogical strategies that can help instructors intentionally influence motivation in religion courses. Ultimately, I suggest that we may be doing students – as well as ourselves, as the purveyors of our discipline – a disservice, if we do not attend to (or, worse, if we actively avoid) what we know motivates students to learn.     

Agents,objects, and their powers in Suarez and Hobbes

The paper examines the place of power in the action theories of Francisco Suarez and Thomas Hobbes. Power is the capacity to produce or determine outcomes. Two cases of power are examined. The first is freedom or the power of agents to determine for themselves what they do. The second is motivation, which involves a power to which agents are subject, and by which they are moved to pursue a goal. Suarez, in the Metaphysical Disputations, uses Aristotelian causation to model these two forms of power. Freedom is efficient causation, but in a special form that I explain as involving something that ordinary causation does not – the contingent determination of outcomes. Motivating power is final causation, which Suarez characterizes as the power of a goal or end to move us to attain it through its goodness or desirability. Suarez regards these two forms of power as consistent – we can be moved by the goodness of a goal freely to determine for ourselves that we act in order to attain it. Hobbes denied the existence of all forms of power beyond ordinary causation, the power of one motion in matter to determine another. So he denied the very existence both of freedom and of any form of motivating power beyond the ordinary causal power of desires as materially based psychological states to produce actions. The goodness itself of a goal never moves us, whether to desire the goal in the first place or to act in order to attain it. The paper examines Hobbes’s arguments and their consequence – establishing the foundations for Hume’s scepticism about practical reason.     

控制感剥夺激发状态毅力：趋近动机的中介作用

采用概念判断任务,通过两个递进式实验探索控制感剥夺对状态毅力的影响并考察趋近动机在其中的作用。实验1主观报告结果显示：短时条件下,控制感剥夺组的状态毅力显著高于控制感维持组,尤其表现在努力持续性维度;长时条件下,两组差异不显著。实验2在此基础上加入行为指标结果显示：短时控制感剥夺通过高趋近动机对状态毅力产生影响。结果表明毅力是可塑的,突出表现在努力持续性上,该效应出现在个体经历短时控制感剥夺后。