职场排斥的作用机制与本土化发展

职场排斥是组织情境中的负面行为,会对员工的心理状态、工作态度和工作行为,以及组织绩效造成严重的影响,近年来得到了学者和管理者的关注。研究主要从职场排斥的概念、测量工具、与其它概念的比较及实证研究四个方面,对国内外相关研究进行了梳理,并探讨中国文化的权变作用。未来研究应从中国的组织情境特点出发,继续完善职场排斥的概念和维度,扩展研究层次,深入分析影响机制,结合中国文化对职场排斥展开本土化研究,丰富研究视角。     

视频游戏中的化身认同

化身认同是个体在使用和体验游戏化身的过程中,自我知觉发生暂时性改变,并与化身在情绪和认知上的联系暂时加强的心理现象,它为理解化身效应提供了新视角。目前,化身认同的测量模型主要有三维和四维结构模型,其神经机制也得到初步揭示。影响化身认同的因素主要包括游戏自身特点和个体因素。影响效果方面,化身认同与游戏体验、游戏成瘾、攻击行为和自我同一性的关系是目前关注的焦点。未来的研究,仍需深入探讨化身认同的概念与结构,研发更加有效的测量工具,拓展研究方法,丰富研究变量,并加强应用研究。     

阅读障碍儿童的形音捆绑缺陷及其脑神经机制

形音捆绑缺陷研究是国内外阅读障碍研究领域的一个新方向。本文阐述了形音捆绑加工的理论与定义,综述了国内外研究者经常采用的三种形音捆绑的研究范式:配对联想学习、变化检测范式和线索回忆任务,介绍并分析了各研究范式的优缺点、适用范围及主要研究发现。同时,综述与评价了国内外有关阅读障碍形音捆绑缺陷的脑机制研究的主要结论及不足。最后,本文讨论了现有研究在实验设计和理论上的贡献与不足,提出了今后的研究方向和改进建议。     

积极追随原型-特质匹配对辱虐管理的影响——基于多项式回归与响应面分析的探索

基于内隐追随理论,探索了领导者的积极追随原型(PFP)与追随者的积极追随特质(PFT)之间的匹配程度如何影响辱虐管理。对194份上下级配对数据进行多项式回归和响应面分析,结果显示:(1)相较于非匹配情形,领导者在"PFP—PFT匹配"情形下更少辱虐追随者;(2)与"PFP低—PFT低"相比,"PFP高—PFT高"情形下辱虐管理程度更低;(3)在非匹配情况下,与"PFP高—PFT低"相比,领导者在"PFP低—PFT高"时对追随者有更少的辱虐管理。以上结论能够为组织预防或减少辱虐管理提供理论指导。     

情节式未来思考中目标加工研究进展

情节式未来思考是个体将自我投射到未来以预先经历某事件的能力,个人目标加工在情节式未来思考中发挥着重要作用。目前对情节式未来思考中目标加工的行为学研究通常将其划分为目标过程模拟和目标结果模拟两种类型,以探究其对执行意图的影响为主;脑机制神经影像学研究则聚焦于默认网络的内侧前额叶和后扣带的重要作用,以及默认网络、额顶控制网络和奖赏区的协同作用。未来研究应进一步探讨情节式未来思考目标加工的形式、年龄差异及其与时间距离的关系。     

青少年创造性发展及其脑机制研究进展

青少年时期是创造性发展的关键阶段,探明青少年创造性发展规律及其神经机制对于培养和激发个体的创新潜能具有重要意义。本文综述了青少年创造性发展及其脑机制的研究进展,分别对青少年创造性思维发展趋势、影响因素及其相应的脑机制展开综述,并在此基础上进行了展望。总体而言,青少年时期创造性思维发展呈现出两个波峰(11~13岁,15~16岁)的发展趋势;青少年创造性发展受外部原生家庭教养方式和学校教师激励以及内部情绪动机和自我管理能力的影响较大;前额叶对青少年创造性发展具有重要作用,这可能与该脑区涉及执行控制功能有关。针对青少年创造性发展的教育干预以及大脑可塑性可能成为该领域的研究热点;而大样本纵向跟踪多模态脑影像数据库的建立可为相关研究提供重要支持。     

A common ground in clinical discussion groups: Intersubjective resonance and implicit operational theories

Clinical discussion groups based on the Three‐Level Model for Observing Patient Transformations (3‐LM) enable us to reflect on the clinical common ground shared by psychoanalysts who have different theoretical frameworks. The very existence of this common ground is controversial. While analysts such as Wallerstein support it, others, like Green, think it is just a myth. In their 2005 controversy Wallerstein and Green proposed an observation procedure that might clarify this matter. This procedure bears great similarity to the one used by clinical discussion groups that apply the 3‐LM. The study of numerous theoretically heterogeneous groups that use this model shows that communication is possible in crucial areas. We may thus conclude that a partial and dynamic common ground exists. At a phenomenological level, certain fragments of material produce a shared resonance that enriches clinical understanding for the whole group. Communication is also possible with regard to the conceptualization of patient changes, although some controversial issues persist at this level. Finally, at the level of theoretical explanations, divergences concerning abstract theories do not prevent a fertile interaction among ‘in vivo’ personal implicit theories. The latter give rise to the actual operational frameworks underlying participants' approach to clinical problems.     

Explicit and implicit shame aversion predict symptoms of avoidant and borderline personality disorders

Research on the connections between shame and personality disorders (PDs) has focused predominantly on shame proneness. We examined the relationships of shame aversion, or experiencing shame as painful and unbearable, with avoidant and borderline personality disorders. Participants completed self-report measures assessing avoidant and borderline PDs, shame aversion, shame proneness and general experiential avoidance, as well as the recently developed questionnaire-based implicit association test that assessed shame aversion. Self-reported and implicit shame aversion correlated with both PDs, and hierarchical regression models showed that shame aversion incrementally predicted these PDs over and above shame proneness and general experiential avoidance. These findings suggest that individuals who perceive shame as particularly aversive tend to resort to maladaptive behavioral patterns that may impair personality functioning.     

Matching between oral inward–outward movements of object names and oral movements associated with denoted objects

In eight experiments, we explored matching effects between oral approach–avoidance movements triggered by word articulation and meaning of the objects the words denoted. Participants (total N?=?1264) rated their liking for words that featured consonantal muscle stricture spots either wandering inwards (e.g., BODIKA, resembling ingestion movements) or outwards (e.g., KODIBA, resembling expectoration movements). These words were labelled as names for various objects. For objects the use of which entails ingestive oral actions (lemonade and mouthwash) inward words were preferred over outward words. For objects that trigger expectorative oral actions (toxical chemical, pill, and bubble gum) this preference was attenuated or even reversed (outward words were liked more than inward). Valence of the denoted object did not play a role in these modulations. Thus, the sagittal direction of mouth movements during silent reading meaningfully interacted with direction of oral actions associated with the denoted objects.     

THE PROBLEM OF “GOD” IN PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION: LONERGAN'S “COMMON SENSE” (RELIGION) VERSUS “THEORY” (THEOLOGY)

The emphasis on God in American psychology of religion generates the problem of explaining divine‐versus‐natural causality in “spiritual experiences.” Especially “theistic psychology” champions divine involvement. However, its argument exposes a methodological error: to pit popular religious opinions against technical scientific conclusions. Countering such homogenizing “postmodern agnosticism,” Bernard Lonergan explained these two as different modes of thinking: “common sense” and “theory”—which resolves the problem: When theoretical science is matched with theoretical theology, “the God‐hypothesis” explains the existence of things whereas science explains their natures; and, barring miracles, God is irrelevant to natural science. A review of the field shows that the problem is pervasive; attention to “miracles”—popularly so‐named versus technically—focuses the claims of divine‐versus‐natural causality; and specifications of the meaning of spiritual, spirituality, science, worldview, and meaning itself (suffering that same ambiguity: personal import versus cognitive content) offer further clarity. The problem is not naturalism versus theism, but commonsensical versus theoretical thinking. This solution demands “hard” social science.