文本信息的激活与整合：阅读优生与差生的比较

探讨阅读优生与差生文本阅读过程中文本信息的激活与整合模式,包括3个实验。实验一通过运用不一致实验范式（inconsistent paradigm）考察阅读优生与阅读差生能否形成整体连贯性与局部连贯性。结果发现,阅读差生难以形成整体连贯性。实验二运用探测－核证范式（probe-verification paradigm）通过比较在三个位置后（人物特征描述、填充段落、目标句）的探测句的反应时间,探讨阅读差生不能形成整体连贯性的原因是由于不能激活先前的信息,还是整合信息时出现了问题。结果发现阅读差生与优生一样都可以激活先前的信息,说明阅读差生不能形成整体连贯性的原因可能是整合的问题。实验三进一步验证了阅读差生不能形成整体连贯性的原因是由于不能把已经激活的信息很好地加以整合所致。     

心理学全球化的趋势

全球化心理学或心理学全球化是当代心理学的一个新取向。它产生的基本动力是当今世界全球化浪潮的出现,主流心理学的局限以及本土心理学的兴起,其基本目标是研究全体人类的心理和行为,力图建构起最具统合性的心理学。     

The Political Egalitarian’s Dilemma

Political egalitarianism is at the core of most normative conceptions of democratic legitimacy. It finds its minimal expression in the “one person one vote” formula. In the literature on deliberative democracy, political equality is typically interpreted in a more demanding sense, but different interpretations of what political equality requires can be identified. In this paper I shall argue that the attempt to specify political equality in deliberative democracy is affected by a dilemma. I shall illustrate the political egalitarian’s dilemma by a hypothetical choice between two informational bases for political equality: Rawlsian primary goods and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. The political egalitarian’s dilemma reveals a clash between the requirement of ensuring equal possibilities to participate in the democratic process and the requirement of subjecting substantive judgments to deliberative evaluation. As such, the dilemma is a variant of the procedure vs. substance dilemma that is well-known in democratic theory. While it has sometimes been argued that deliberative democracy solves the tension between procedure and substance, the political egalitarian’s dilemma shows that this tension continues within deliberative democracy.

笔迹与人格关系研究的回顾及评价

西方心理学者对笔相学家的笔迹分析提出质疑,研究表明需要我们重新考虑笔迹分析的适用性,而其利用因素分析技术对笔迹与人格关系的大量研究发现,笔迹特征与EPQ中的E因素、N因素相关显著。我国古代丰富的笔迹学思想和当代笔相学家的实践经验为我们从心理学角度研究笔迹与人格之间的关系,提供了宝贵的资料,但我们在这一领域运用心理学方法的研究还刚刚起步。目前国内外心理学者在研究取向、笔迹特征选择和研究目的上还存在一定局限,对此加深认识,将会对我们具有重要的借鉴意义。     

GLOBAL ETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A REFLECTION

This paper examines the contributions that the international human rights community can make to the definition and framing of a practically effective global ethic, especially in light of ongoing concerns about social and economic justice, environmental issues, and systematic abuses of vulnerable populations. The principal argument is that the human rights movement in all of its dimensions (moral, legal, political) provides the pivotal foundation for a practicable global ethic now and for the foreseeable future. Evidence for the truth of this claim is discerned in the movement's contemporary efforts to intersect explicitly with other areas of international law and politics. Examples adduced include developments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples, decision making about the environment, and transitional justice.     

The “Deliberative Digital Divide:” Opinion Leadership and Integrative Complexity in the U.S. Political Blogosphere

This study examined the association between political ideology and linguistic indicators of integrative complexity and opinion leadership in U.S. political blog posts (N = 519). Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) text analysis, we found that the posts of conservative bloggers were more integratively simple than those of liberal bloggers. Furthermore, in support of a proposed opinion leadership model of integrative complexity, the relationship between ideology and integrative complexity was mediated by psychological distancing (an indicator of a hierarchical communication style). These findings demonstrate an ideological divide in the extent to which the blogosphere reflects deliberative democratic ideals.     

Liberation as a Correlate of Religiosity: a Christian–Muslim Perspective on Fundamental Trust

This article explores the dialectical relationship between liberating trust in reality and religious faith in God, interpreted from a Christian–Muslim perspective. An underlying conviction is that liberation constitutes a necessary mutual correlate of a “true” religiosity, i.e. liberation is to be conceived as both prerequisite for and realization of a genuine religiosity, and vice versa. As opposed to a “true” religiosity, born from liberating trust and finding its fulfilment in prophetic action aimed at liberation of human realities, religious belief and practice that stem from fundamental mistrust are likely to deteriorate into either religious fundamentalism or indifferentism. The article focuses on fundamental trust in reality as capable of evoking the liberating and uniting force of religious theory and praxis. It aims to render explicit the religious and ecumenical potential (hitherto not fully realized) of the theological–ethical considerations of Hans Küng, in particular within a Christian–Muslim framework. The first part of the article, more conceptual in character, examines Küng's views on fundamental (mis)trust and its religious implications. The second part seeks to identify theological insights that shed light on the specifically Christian and specifically Muslim interpretations of liberating trust. My hope is that this study may contribute to a truly global ecumenism whose objective is to render religion an instrument of liberation, not oppression.     

Global ethics and human responsibility: challenges for the theory and the discipline

The aim of this article is to identify the main challenges for global ethics as an academic discipline. This article assesses the moral and practical justifications for common global principles. Individual and institutional responsibility on the supranational level is connected with the standard of human rights and the relational aspects of the globalised world. It also points out two separate problems which global ethics should aim to solve. The first is metatheoretical and methodological and concerns the discipline's lack of self-reflexiveness. The second is essential and concerns the clash of values (human rights and sovereignty). Regarding the second problem, the main future challenge of global ethics is to construct a measurement to bring political decisions closer to morality and more strongly connect rights with responsibilities.     

Development and global ethics: five foci for the future

In this paper’s first section, I briefly discuss the Journal’s Global Ethics Forum and various ways development ethics (DE) has been related to global ethics (GE). Regardless of which of these three (or other) conceptions of DE and GE one adopts, I believe that we should avoid two partial views of the causes of injustice: (1) “explanatory nationalism,” which “makes us look at poverty and oppression as problems whose root cause and possible solutions are domestic” (Pogge 2002); and (2) “explanatory globalism” in which local and national problems are ultimately due to global factors (and the rich democracies largely responsible for them). In the second section I identify five topics and argue that development and global ethicists should emphasize them and their relations in future work. These future foci should be the following: (1) inequality of power, (2) agency and empowerment, (3) democracy and development, (4) corruption, and (5) transitional justice. A final section concludes.     

Global ethics: dimensions and prospects

Global ethics is an emerging discipline which has not yet reached maturity. The main tasks before it to gain maturity are: first, to achieve a greater integration of various domains of enquiry all of which are concerned with global normative issues. At a general level this includes integrating global ethics with cosmopolitanism, global justice and human right discourse. At the level of areas of concern, there needs to be greater integration of various areas such as development, trade, environment and climate change. And it must grapple with the question of diversity within universality: how far can diversity of practices be accommodated within a culturally sensitive universal framework? Second, there is the question of finding a shared normative framework with respect to the diverse worldviews that may lie behind this: what degree and kind of convergence/consensus are worth working for? Third, there is the task of creating the conditions for its own wider acceptance, which should include taking the idea of global citizenship seriously.