Subjective well-being,social buffering and hedonic editing in the quotidian

A previous study on the relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and hedonic editing—the process of mentally integrating or segregating different events during decision-making—showed that happy individuals preferred the social-buffering strategy more than less happy individuals. The present study examined the relationship between SWB, social-buffering and hedonic outcomes in daily life. In Study 1, we used web-based diaries to measure the frequency with which individuals utilised social and non-social buffers as well as daily levels of happiness. Consistent with the previous finding, happy individuals utilised social buffers more frequently than less happy individuals. Interestingly, the utilisation of social buffers had a positive effect on daily happiness among all participants, regardless of individuals’ levels of SWB. In Study 2, we found that although the use of social buffers yielded similar effects across groups on online evaluations of events, happy individuals showed a positive bias in global evaluations of past events. This finding suggests that how one construes and remembers the outcomes of social buffering may shape the different hedonic editing preferences among happy and less happy individuals.     

SCI论文与科研评价——兼谈论文编辑公司

《科学引文索引》(Science Citation Index,SCI)作为杂志质量的客观评价工具被引入我国后,逐渐成为我国科研评价重要的,乃至唯一的指标,对科研人员产生了强烈的导向作用,并催生了SCI论文热.比较了我国与其他国家大学及科研院所的科研评价体系和评价指标组成,分析了SCI论文在其中发挥的作用.结果表明,SCI论文在世界范围已经、正在并将继续在科研评价中发挥重要的作用,但将其唯一化、绝对化,不利于科研的发展.我国的SCI论文热也催生了国内论文服务公司的繁荣及乱象.     

广告代言人参与度研究:深层代言还是浅层代言?

有关广告代言人效果、消费者卷入的研究都曾引起学界的重视并已取得了丰硕的成果,然而,代言人在品牌代言时实际参与(卷入)的程度是否影响消费者对其代言效果的认识,当代言不同类别的产品时这种代言效果是否依然存在,此外,消费者的个性特点是否也会影响这种代言效果等仍需要理论上的深入探讨。本文通过2(代言人高参与度/代言人低参与度)×2(高认知需求/低认知需求)×2(享乐型产品/功能型产品)的实验设计,全面、系统地探讨了代言人参与的深浅程度对消费者品牌态度和品牌文化感知的影响,以及消费者认知需求对两者之间的调节作用。结果表明,无论是代言享乐型还是功能型产品,代言人参与程度都会对消费者品牌态度和品牌文化感知有显著的影响,而且消费者对于明星代言享乐型产品的品牌态度显著高于功能型产品。特别地,这种作用还受到消费者认知需求水平的影响。即当消费者认知需求水平高时,名人参与代言的程度会对其品牌态度造成积极的正向的影响;而当消费者认知需求水平低时,名人参与代言程度则不会对其品牌态度造成显著影响。     

Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters

Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence. If the genetic enhancements we can provide children get better and better each year, then the enhancements granted to children born in any given year will rapidly go out of date. Sooner or later, every modified child will find him- or herself to be “yesterday’s child.” The impacts of such obsolescence on our individual, social, and philosophical self-understanding constitute an underexplored set of considerations relevant to the ethics of genome editing.     

Age similarities in matching pro- and contra-hedonic emotional strategies to everyday scenarios

ABSTRACT

Older adults are motivated to maximize positive affect in the present. Young adults will purposely feel negative and high arousal emotions in order to achieve a goal. However, this type of contra-hedonic emotional alignment has not been extensively studied with older adults. We expected older adults are less likely than young adults to select high arousal and negative emotions within specific scenarios where those states could be useful. In two studies, participants selected the emotion they preferred in hypothetical problems that varied on the arousal and valence best suited for goal achievement. Young and older adults were equally likely to endorse affective strategies that matched both pro and contra-hedonic scenarios. While older adults may be generally motivated to avoid negative and high-arousing emotions, they are just as likely as young adults to indicate that these states could be helpful in certain situations.     

Arise for It Is Day:

No abstract available for this article.     

Revising,Correcting, and Transferring Genes

Abstract

The distinction between germline and somatic gene editing is fundamental to the ethics of human gene editing. Multiple conferences of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers, and multiple professional bodies, have called for moratoria on germline gene editing, and editing of human germline cells is considered to be an ethical “red line” that either never should be crossed, or should only be crossed with great caution and care. However, as research on germline gene editing has progressed, it has become clear that not all germline interventions are alike, and that these differences make a significant moral difference, when it comes to ethical questions about research, regulation, clinical application, and medical justification. In this paper, I argue that, rather than lumping all germline interventions together, we should distinguish between revising, correcting, and transferring genes, and I assess the consequences of this move for the ethics of gene editing.