The Normative Core Of Paternalism

The philosophical debate on paternalism is conducted as if the property of being paternalistic should be attributed to actions. Actions are typically deemed to be paternalistic if they amount to some kind of interference with a person and if the rationale for the action is the good of the person interfered with. This focus on actions obscures the normative issues involved. In particular, it makes it hard to provide an analysis of the traditional liberal resistance to paternalism. Given the fact that actions most often have mixed rationales, it is not clear how we should categorize and evaluate interfering actions for which only part of the rationale is the good of the person. The preferable solution is to attribute the property of being paternalistic not to actions, but to compounds of reasons and actions. The framework of action–reasons provides the tools for distinguishing where exactly paternalism lies in the complex web of reasons and actions.     

Quality of Work Life as a Mediator Between Emotional Labor and Work Family Interference

Purpose  We adopted the conservation of resources model (COR, Hobfoll Am Psychol 44:513–524, 1989; Hobfoll in Stress, culture, and community: the psychology and philosophy of stress, Plenum, New York, 1998) to examine the associations among emotional labor, work family interference, and quality of work life. Design/Methodology/Approach  Cross-sectional, self-reported data were obtained from 442 Hong Kong Chinese service employees. Findings  Correlation and hierarchical regression analyses showed that surface acting was a salient correlate of work-to-family interference, even when organizational display rules and employees’ demographic information were controlled. Furthermore, quality of work life had partially mediated the relationship between surface acting and work-to-family interference. However, deep acting and expression of naturally felt emotion did not relate to work-to-family interference. Finally, we found that family-to-work interference was a salient correlate of the use of surface acting in workplace. Implication  This study provided useful information of how adopting different emotional labor strategies related to work family interference. Based on our results, the use of deep acting should be promoted in workplace because it related positively to quality of work life and it did not amplify the work-to-family interference. Originality/value  While past studies often explored the role of emotional labor as the precursor of work family interference, our study is among the first attempt to examine family-to-work interference as the antecedent of emotional labor. Additionally, we had also confirmed the role of quality of work life as an important mediator between emotional labor-work-to-family interference.     

免疫分析中抗体干扰相关问题的探讨

免疫分析是一项应用广泛的技术,抗体是免疫分析的关键问题。循环中内源性抗体对免疫分析的干扰与该技术本身一样古老,由于抗体干扰造成的可疑或错误的结果一直与其并存。但对于其机制、类型扣对策并未廓清。有鉴于此,有必要对抗体干扰免疫分析的诸多问题进行更深入的基础与临床研究,以提高临床诊断水平。     

Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction

Distraction by irrelevant background sound of visually-based cognitive tasks illustrates the vulnerability of attentional selectivity across modalities. Four experiments centred on auditory distraction during tests of memory for visually-presented semantic information. Meaningful irrelevant speech disrupted the free recall of semantic category-exemplars more than meaningless irrelevant sound (Experiment 1). This effect was exacerbated when the irrelevant speech was semantically related to the to-be-remembered material (Experiment 2). Importantly, however, these effects of meaningfulness and semantic relatedness were shown to arise only when instructions emphasized recall by category rather than by serial order (Experiments 3 and 4). The results favor a process-oriented, rather than a structural, approach to the breakdown of attentional selectivity and forgetting: performance is impaired by the similarity of process brought to bear on the relevant and irrelevant material, not the similarity in item content.     

The conjunction fallacy and interference effects

In the present article we consider the conjunction fallacy, a well known cognitive fallacy experimentally tested in cognitive science, which occurs for intuitive judgments. We show that the quantum formalism can be used to describe, in a very simple way, this fallacy, in terms of interference effect. We provide evidence that the quantum formalism leads quite naturally to violations of the joint probability rule of classic probability when considering the estimated probability of the conjunction of two events. By defining the concept of maximal conjunction error, we find a good agreement with experimental results. Thus we suggest that in cognitive science the formalism of quantum mechanics can be used to describe a quantum regime, where the cognitive fallacies and heuristics are valid.     

记忆的知觉干扰效应研究概述

知觉干扰效应是指在识记阶段快速呈现一个单词,紧接着给予一个倒行掩蔽的刺激,在随后的记忆测验中被试表现出对单词的记忆增强的一种现象。知觉干扰效应的影响因素分为测验方式、实验设计方式、实验材料的属性和其他影响因素四个方面。理论解释主要有六种：精细加工假说、时空背景假说、任务要求假说、补偿加工假说、选择性复述假说以及项目特异关联假说。最后,文章从研究领域和实验材料的拓展以及主观因素的影响展望了该研究领域     

汉字、拼音、英文Stroop干扰效应的比较研究

本研究通过比较汉字、拼音和英文的Stroop干扰效应,考察文字系统的差异能否影响Stroop干扰效应。结果表明汉字、拼音、英文在Stroop任务中的干扰效应依次降低。组块之间的比较表明随着刺激的重复呈现,汉字、拼音、英文的Stroop干扰效应都逐渐变小且趋于相同。对Stroop效应更加合理的理论解释是整合了文字加工过程的平行分布加工模型。     

汉语词汇产生中语义、字形和音韵激活的时间进程

通过图画－词汇干扰实验范式探索汉语单字词产生中语义、字形和语音激活的时间进程。实验一和实验二的结果综合表明：当SOA为-300 ms~0 ms时,存在语义抑制效应,当SOA为-100 ms~100 ms时,存在字形促进效应,当SOA为100 ms时,存在语音促进效应。实验结果支持交互激活理论的观点。实验成功地分离了字形促进效应和语音促进效应,确定了语义、字形和语音这三种信息在汉语口语词汇产生中通达的先后次序,讨论了字形信息在词汇产生中的重要作用,以及被试是否在实验中使用了策略。     

媒体多任务的效用：听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合的实验证据

采用心理旋转范式和词汇判断范式,探讨媒体多任务经验不同者在听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合情境下对图形一致性和真假词的判断表现。结果发现：（1）以判断图形一致性为实验任务,在无声和低音干扰条件下,低经验组的正确率均显著高于高经验组,两组的反应时差异均不显著;在高音干扰条件下,高经验组的反应时显著短于低经验组,正确率则没有显著差异。（2）以真假词判断为实验任务,对真词进行判断,在三种听觉条件下,高经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时最短,与低经验组无显著差异,但正确率显著高于低经验组,与另两种听觉条件没有显著差异;低经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时显著长于另两种听觉条件,正确率则显著高于无声条件,与不匹配条件差异不显著。对假词的判断,低经验组在三种听觉条件下的反应时均显著短于高经验组,正确率与高经验组均无显著差异。研究表明,媒体多任务经验丰富者相比经验缺乏者受到任务无关的纯短高音干扰的影响要小,在需要视听通道语义整合的加工中具有一定的优势。     

双作业的信息编码方式对作业绩效的影响

采用单作业和双作业操作,探讨了不同信息编码方式对双作业操作绩效的影响。实验结果证明：若采用相同的信息编码方式,同时操作的两种作业就会产生相互干扰,降低双作业操作绩效;相反,若同时操作的两种作业采用不同信息编码方式将有效地减小双作业操作的相互干扰,使双作业操作的绩效得到提高。