To share or not to share: The place of personal disclosure in scholarly writing

The norms of scholarly discourse have traditionally excluded personal disclosures in conceptual articles, as if the subjective nature of such revelations would be inconsistent with the scientific/objective stature of these works. Based on the author's experience with a recent publication, based on recent studies of researcher projection and bias in case studies, and using a framework of organizational communication, it is suggested here that there is indeed a contribution such disclosures can make. It is not recommended that sharing on a personal level become a new norm, but rather that the choice to share be considered as viable in a scholarly context. Five specific benefits of such sharing are listed, including unearthing and revealing bias, demystifying the process of discovery, and avoiding the trap of defensive reasoning.     

Mechanism of formation of aligned two-phase microstructure in a Fe-0.25wt%C alloy under high magnetic field gradients

The effect of a magnetic force on creating an aligned two-phase microstructure in a Fe-0.25wt%C alloy under magnetic field gradients has been investigated. Through the changes in the heating temperature, both dipolar interactions and magnetic forces work together during the austenite to ferrite transformation. The results showed that the aligned two-phase microstructure is not observed under the influence of the magnetic force alone. The ferrite grains are elongated due to dipole interactions at the early stages of their nucleation and growth and then the magnetic force turns the elongated ferrite grains, whose major axis is not parallel to the direction of magnetic force, to the direction of the field in the presence of magnetic field gradients.     

When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts

An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a superordinate category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the superordinate category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the superordinate category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the superordinate category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the superordinate category was primed.     

The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments

Recently, Waldzus et al. [Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385-400] have shown that ingroup members often tend to judge the ingroup as more prototypical of the superordinate group than other subgroups. In this paper, we argue that, in addition to the motivational processes that have been posited to explain this phenomenon, prototypicality judgments may vary according to instrumental considerations. In particular, those who believe their ingroup interest to be undermined by remaining part of the common group will downplay ingroup’s prototypicality as a way to sustain their separatist position. In a first study (N = 63), we found that Scottish respondents who support Scottish independence judged the Scots to be less prototypical of Britain than the English, as compared with Scots who do not support independence. In a second study (N = 191), we manipulated the rhetorical context within which prototypicality judgments were made. Results showed that the pattern found in study 1 only applied when the issue of independence was made salient. When the issue of the importance of Scottish history in Britain was made salient, the opposite pattern appeared, i.e. supporters of independence judged the Scots more prototypical than the English compared to non-supporters. These results were also interpreted in instrumental terms.     

判断与决策中的投射偏差

投射偏差是指个体常常会高估未来偏好与当前偏好的一致性, 从而把当前偏好投射到未来的心理倾向性。本文从情感–认知加工、时间修正和心理模拟等视角对投射偏差的心理机制进行了解释, 并概括出投射偏差的内源性(含内脏感觉、情绪状态和需要)和外源性(含事件相关信息、天气状况和选择情境)影响因素, 还总结归纳出投射偏差的三种应对策略, 最后指出了投射偏差在未来研究的方向。     

Jungian approach to human aggression with special emphasis on war

Cross-cultural and interdisciplinary agreement as to the universality of aggressive behavior and warfare is compatible with Jung's [(1959): “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol 9, Part I, Para 3.” London: Routledge] theory of archetypes functioning as components of the human collective unconscious. Jungian formulations involve a phylogenetic view of psychic phenomena since archetypes are conceived as neuropsychic entities which evolved through natural selection. It is argued that the banding together of young males for the purpose of aggressive pursuits such as hunting, intergroup conflict, and warfare is a biologically transmitted propensity mediated by archetypal structures in the human brain-psyche. Universally apparent patterns of affiliative and hostile behaviors are linked to Chance's [(1988): “Social Fabrics of the Mind.” London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates] hedonic and agonic modes and seen as later ontological expressions of archetypal structures responsible in childhood for formation of bonds of attachment to familiars and avoidance and wariness of strangers. Erikson's [(1984): Yale Review 73(4): 481–486] concept of pseudospeciation is associated with Jung's concept of shadow projection to elucidate the phenomena of patriotism, xenophobia, national paranoia, Lorenz's [(1966): “On Aggression.” London: Methuen & Co.] “militant enthusiasm,” propaganda, and mobilization for war. Finally, it is argued that peace between nations can be promoted through conscious awareness of archetypally determined patterns of intergroup conflict and a collective resolve not to pseudospeciate our neighbors. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.