负面绩效反馈下员工绩效改进动机的人机比较

负面绩效反馈对员工学习和绩效提升具有重要意义, 然而其往往难以被员工所接受。随着人工智能技术(artificial intelligence, AI)逐渐应用于组织情境中, 探索AI提供负面绩效反馈对员工行为及态度的影响成为重要议题。采用4个递进式实验探索了AI与人类管理者提供负面绩效反馈对个体绩效改进动机的差异化影响及机制。实验1~3采取经典的虚假反馈的策略, 发现相较于人类管理者, AI提供负面绩效反馈引发个体更高水平的绩效改进动机(实验1)。并且, 在客观任务中, AI (较人类管理者)提供负面绩效反馈引发个体更高水平的绩效改进动机; 而在主观任务中, 结果则相反(实验2)。此外, 个体对于负面绩效反馈的内部归因解释了上述关系发生的内在机制(实验3)。实验4则采用相对真实的负面绩效反馈情境, 重复了先前3个实验的研究发现。该研究对于组织为何以及何时应用AI提供负面绩效反馈提供了一定的启示。     

何为成功之母? 绝对和相对反馈情境下失败和成功次数对耐挫的影响

本研究通过4个实验探讨绝对和相对结果反馈情境下, 个体经历不同失败次数后, 成功次数对其耐挫表现的影响。实验1和实验2分别采用绝对结果(1a和1b: n = 132)和相对结果(2a和2b: n = 132)创设失败和成功反馈, 以不同难度(1a和2a)和相同难度(1b和2b)的图形推理题操纵先前的失败次数(5次或10次)和成功次数(1次或5次)。研究发现: (1)绝对结果反馈情境下: 经历5次失败后, 不论何种难度任务, 5次成功的耐挫表现高于1次成功。经历10次失败后, 相同难度任务下, 5次成功的耐挫表现高于1次成功; 不同难度任务下, 5次成功和1次成功的耐挫表现无差异。(2)相对结果反馈情境下: 经历10次失败后, 不论何种难度任务, 5次成功的耐挫表现高于1次成功。经历5次失败后, 相同难度任务下, 5次成功和1次成功的耐挫表现无差异; 不同难度任务下, 5次成功的耐挫表现高于1次成功。研究结果支持“成功是成功之母”的观点。     

第二语言学习中的反馈

在第二语言学习中,反馈指针对学习者的言语行为给予学习者的评价性信息。该文阐释了反馈的概念、类型以及反馈在第二语言学习中的角色,并从反馈的时机与对象、对学习者注意力的引导、学习者认知资源的限制、情感支持等方面分析了有效反馈的特征,最后对反馈研究对我国第二语言学习与教学的意义及以后的研究方向进行了探讨     

Evidence that rats discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar putative urinary odorants of adult male conspecifics

Adam [1976; Lehman and Adams, 1977] suggested that a resident rat makes an olfactory comparison of cage odor and other rat odor prior to attacking an unfamiliar conspecific intruder. The findings of the present study are consistent with the notion that rats discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar putative urinary odorants Adult male albino rats were tested for preferences between areas treated with familiar urine (11 hours pretest exposure), unfamiliar urine (no pretest exposure), and untreated areas. Subjects (N = 12) preferred areas treated with familiar urine over ones treated with unfamiliar urine (p < 0.05). Also, they (N = 12 per preference-test group) preferred areas treated with either urine over untreated ones (familiar versus clean, p < 0.01; unfamiliar versus clean, p < 0.05).     

WHEN PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IS THE GOAL: A NEW SET OF CRITERIA FOR CRITERIA

Weitz (1961), aware of the lure of tradition and expedience, urged the identification of evaluation standards for dependent variables, which he referred to as criteria for criteria. In this article, five criteria are proposed using the mnemonic SURF & C: the directness of sampling (S); the responsiveness of the target (i.e., making sure the dependent variable is under (U) the worker's control); the reliability (R) of observers; the frequent (F) assessment of the target during the intervention period; and the critical (C) nature of the target. Together the criteria provide guidelines for what and how targets should be assessed. Their necessity is illustrated in two year-long experiments designed to improve the preventive maintenance of heavy equipment in the U.S. Marine Corps. Although the criteria are limited to evaluating dependent variables in field experiments, they are recommended as the foundation for successful performance efforts in any applied setting.