结构需求:概念、测量及与相关变量的关系

结构需求是个体对简单结构、清晰有条理的事物与环境的偏爱和需要,其本质是一种动机,个体通常会以结构严密、有条理或简化复杂信息的认知加工方式将其表现出来。结构需求存在着个体差异性。高结构需求水平的个体能够简化复杂的信息和环境,以清晰和简单的表征与描述去理解、建构他们的世界,从而减少认知资源的支出和消耗,提高认知操作的效率,维持认知与行为倾向的内在稳定。研究者梳理了结构需求的概念内涵、理论基础,介绍了两种主要的结构需求测量工具(PNS-12量表,PNS-11量表),以及结构需求的相关研究,分别从结构需求的前因变量、结果变量的角度对其相关研究进行了阐述。未来研究应深入探究结构需求的概念与结构,拓展其研究方法,研发更加有效的测评工具,深入探讨其影响机制,开展结构需求的中国化研究。     

All on the Same Side: Reflections on the Dialogue Between Science and Religion

The 'war' between religion and science is winding down, creating new opportunities for fruitful dialogue. The foundations of indirect religion-science dialogue, where the perspectives of the two disciplines illuminate some third subject, are not well established. A detailed comparison of the Roman Catholic bishops' dialogues and a similar program within the American Association for the Advancement of Science illustrates the variety in formalscience-religion interactions and reveals much about the promise, achievements, and limitations of different approaches. Success depends in large part on controlling the diversity of the dialogue group, choosing topics carefully, and adopting positive and cooperative attitudes.     

中西方古代“性善论”比较研究

本论文以中国古代儒家思想（以孔子和孟子为代表）和西方古希腊三杰（苏格拉底、柏拉图和亚里士多德）的人性思想中的＂性善论＂为研究对象,说明两者在唯心主义色彩、重义轻利的立场以及在重视人性的后天培养等几个方面的相似性;同时,作者还认识到,由于文化差异,双方在诸多方面又存在不同,主要表现为中西方在历史上占主导地位的人性观不同、在人性培养的方法认识上的差别、人与人之间关系的差异等。     

"好人"如何一生平安?——走出"德福悖论"的怪圈

德福悖论现象一直是道德生活中所面,临的重大问题之一,为历代思想家所关注。在市场经济时代,“好人”虽不再是一个不言“利”的主体,但他能否“一生平安”,德福之间能否统一,关键在于“好人”是否处于一个“有道”或公正的社会制度里。     

生活的沉思与沉思的生活——亚里士多德善与德性概念之探析

本通过考察善与德性概念的意义变迁,揭示柏拉图的知识道德论和亚里士多德的目的论的“行动伦理学”的内在区别和联系,从而使我们更深刻地理解亚里士多德的善与德性概念的含义。     

生命意义的内涵、测量及功能

研究者通常用目的和含义来定义生命意义,或者把它定义为多维度的结构。认知、动机和情感是被提及最多的生命意义的组成维度。动机和认知维度得到了较多研究者的认可,而情感维度存在较大争议。生命意义是幸福不可或缺的元素,它能够影响许多与幸福有关的变量。目前的研究对生命意义的动机维度(生命意义寻求)及如何获得和提高生命意义研究较少,今后的研究可针对这两方面开展。     

Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare

Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.     

Marriage and the Public Good

In this article I seek to address some misunderstandings inarguments about same sex-marriage. I do this by evaluating severalviews on homosexuality and marriage. My central aim is to showthat a rejection of same-sex marriage does not depend upon theview that homosexual acts are immoral or disordered. Rather,one must examine sexual acts in light of public goods that areat stake. I also argue that the Christian understanding of marriageand sexuality offers more than a set of prohibitions againstcertain sexual acts. Rather, it offers reasonable principlesby which to evaluate the relationship between sexual acts andthe public good.     

Procedural and interpersonal fairness moderate the relationship between outcome fairness and acceptance of merit pay

An organizational field study (N = 257) investigated employees' acceptance of a new merit pay system as involving an assessment of whether merit pay can make their earnings more fair, compared to their earnings in the current, seniority-based pay system. We expected that improvement of unfair earnings, and consequently acceptance of merit pay, is considered likely when existing procedures that produce these earnings are unfair, because merit pay improves such procedures. We also expected improvement of unfair earnings, and increased merit pay acceptance, to be likely when employees anticipate fair performance evaluation in a new system, as indicated by fair interpersonal treatment by their supervisor. Results showed that procedural and interpersonal fairness in the existing pay system indeed moderated the relationship between fairness of current outcomes and merit pay acceptance as predicted. Implications for the introduction of merit pay in organizations and for our understanding of the different roles of procedural and interpersonal fairness in outcome evaluations are discussed.     

A comparison of two online cognitive‐behavioural interventions for symptoms of depression in a student population: The role of therapist responsiveness

Objectives: The study aimed to compare the efficacy of eight weekly sessions of a self‐administered online CBT treatment (cCBT; n=51) to a therapist‐assisted email CBT treatment (eCBT; n=50) in University students. Design: The design was a randomised parallel group trial. The study randomised participants with symptoms of depression to one of two available treatments. Method: Participants were offered eight weekly sessions of either cCBT or eCBT. Participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI‐II) and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM) at pre‐and post‐treatment, at weeks 16 and 32 follow‐up. The Working Alliance Inventory‐Short Form (WAI‐SR) was completed at weeks 2, 4, and 6. Results: For both groups, pre‐post within group effect sizes reported were large for the BDI‐II and the CORE‐OM and these were maintained at follow‐up. Perceptions of working alliance were similar in each group, but Bond was significantly stronger for the eCBT condition. WAI scores correlated more positively with the outcome on BDI‐II for those in the eCBT condition than the cCBT condition, but not significantly. Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the two online treatments, both reduced depressive symptoms and improved general functioning. Similarly, at post‐treatment and follow‐up, clinical improvement and recovery was demonstrated for both groups equally. The study demonstrates the possibility for cCBT in a university setting that may contribute to addressing the shortcomings in meeting increasing demands that mental health services presently face.