青少年自尊与攻击的关系：中介变量和调节变量的作用

以705名初、高中生为被试,采用量表法和同伴提名法收集数据,探讨了自尊与攻击的关系以及对二者关系可能有影响的中介变量和调节变量的作用。结果表明：（1）自尊与攻击的相关系数为-0.21,这说明低自尊与高攻击有关;（2）回归方程纳入自控后,自尊对攻击的预测在统计意义上不明显,表明自尊通过自控对攻击产生影响,自控在自尊与攻击的关系中起着中介的作用;（3）社会地位对自尊与攻击之间的关系具有调节作用,它调节着两者关系的强度;（4）社会影响对自控的中介作用具有调节作用     

Peer relationships in counseling psychology training

Twelve students from APA-accredited counseling psychology doctoral programs were interviewed about their experiences with peers in their program, and about their values and beliefs about peer relationships in graduate school. Interview data were analyzed using consensual qualitative research. Participants reported a wide range of positive (e.g. collaborative and supportive) and negative (e.g. competitive and hostile) interactions with peers inside and outside of the classroom, in research, and in clinical work. Compared to advisory and supervisory relationships, peer relationships were typically less formal and more open. The sharing of common training experiences generally facilitated mutual understanding among trainees. In addition, a visual analog scale, the peer relationship scale (PRS), was used to measure participants’ closeness with peers. Results from the PRS appeared to be useful in distinguishing participants with the most positive and negative peer relationships, warranting further investigation of its psychometric properties and application in program evaluation and research on training. Implications for training are discussed.     

The effect of counselling-based training on online peer support

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of counselling-based training on online peer support by comparing the interventions of trained peer supporters as opposed to non-trained peer supporters. Two independent raters analysed 746 support posts published during a period of one year at the ‘Student to Student’ online peer support discussion forum at University of Athens. Results showed that the 30-hour counselling-based training used in this study allowed trained peer supporters to use basic counselling skills, such as open-ended and closed-ended questions and paraphrasing more often and even use relatively complex techniques, such as problem solving or definition of the main problem that non-trained supporters did not use at all or used very rarely. In addition, training did not seem to affect the peer support relationship, as indicated by the lack of differences between the two groups on empathy, acceptance and empowerment. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the training enhanced the peer support offered without compromising the nature of the relationship formed between peers. Therefore, brief counselling-based training can be an integral part of every peer-moderated online support programme.     

Lunch Buddy Mentoring for Children Victimized by Peers: Two Pilot Studies

The authors describe two pilot studies examining the potential benefits of Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring, a manualized approach to school-based mentoring. LB mentoring takes place during the school lunch period and is designed to promote positive changes in children's peer relationships. In both studies, changes in peer victimization were assessed after one and three semesters of LB mentoring. In the first study, LB mentors were paired with elementary school children (N = 24) identified by child and teacher reports as victimized by peers. Results revealed significant declines in self- and teacher-rated victimization after one and three semesters of mentoring. In the second study, LB mentors were paired with victimized children who also engaged in bullying behavior (N = 23). Results indicated significant declines in self- and teacher-ratings of peer victimization after three semesters of mentoring. In both studies, ratings of perceived harm were low and ratings of satisfaction were high. Discussed are the implications of these findings for future research and for efforts to develop a nonharmful way to help children who are repeatedly victimized.     

Disagreement and Intellectual Scepticism

Several philosophers have recently argued that disagreement with others undermines or precludes epistemic justification for our opinions about controversial issues (e.g. political, religious, and philosophical issues). This amounts to a fascinating and disturbing kind of intellectual scepticism. A crucial piece of the sceptical argument, however, is that our opponents on such topics are epistemic peers. In this paper, I examine the reasons for why we might think that our opponents really are such peers, and I argue that those reasons are either (a) too weak or (b) too strong, implying absurd conclusions. Thus, there is not a compelling case for disagreement-based intellectual scepticism.     

Peer Disagreement and Two Principles of Rational Belief

This paper presents a new solution to the problem of peer disagreement that distinguishes two principles of rational belief, here called probability and autonomy. When we discover that we disagree with peers, there is one sense in which we rationally ought to suspend belief, and another in which we rationally ought to retain our original belief. In the first sense, we aim to believe what is most probably true according to our total evidence, including testimony from peers and authorities. In the second, we aim to base our beliefs only on objective evidence and argumentation, even if that lowers the probability of their being true. The first principle of rational belief tends to serve the short-term epistemic interests of individuals, while the second tends to serve the long-term epistemic interests of both individuals and groups. The best way to reconcile these principles in cases of peer disagreement is to associate them with two corresponding species of belief, here called perception and opinion.     

Delving into the ‘emotional storms’: A thematic analysis of psychoanalysts’ initial consultation reports

Psychoanalysts’ written reports on initial consultations are a window into the complexities of a crucial aspect of psychoanalytic work. However, systematic research in this area has largely focused on patients’ demographic factors or standardized measures. The present study looked at reports of all the consultations taking place at the London Clinic of Psychoanalysis over one calendar year (N = 100). The aim was to explore psychoanalysts’ different explicit styles of working and reporting as well as further understanding implicit processes used in thinking and writing about each particular consultation experience. A thematic analysis revealed a set of themes that related to a style of working and thinking about the consultation process as a dyadic experience, where the interaction, affective reactions and contact made between the two are the focus when thinking of making a recommendation for psychoanalysis. The majority of the reports had an open, exploratory quality. The writing of reports appears to give the analyst an opportunity to process the consultation experience and arrive at a more triangular position. Writing reports is a more valuable part of the consultation process than has formally been recognized and acknowledged. The limitations of this study as well as the relevance of these findings for future research are discussed.