宽以待己，严于律人：道德伪善的双加工机制研究

道德伪善是指个体对同一道德违规行为进行评判时,对自己宽松而对他人严苛的现象。双加工理论认为道德伪善是个体对自身道德违规行为有意识辩护以维护道德自我形象的结果。为此,本研究通过两个行为实验考察直觉思维和分析思维对道德伪善的影响。结果发现,分析性思维可易化道德伪善,直觉性思维无此作用。实验果支持道德伪善的双加工机制模型,道德自利性行为并非自动化的反应,需要认知努力和分析推理的参与。     

推理判断中偏差反应的加工机制：冲突探查失败，还是抑制失败？

通过控制自变量一致性（冲突、非冲突）与问题类型（基础比率问题、合取问题）,对推理判断中偏差反应的加工机制：冲突探查失败,还是抑制失败,进行验证。反应时、反应自信度的结果支持抑制失败说,被试对冲突的探查是成功的,偏差反应的产生是没能抑制占主导的直觉。而冲突探查大小（Conflict detection size）的结果表明冲突探查存在个体差异,有些被试对两种加工间的冲突探查过程完美无暇(Flawless detection),有些被试的冲突探查过程松散马虎(Lax detection),而且受到问题类型的影响。     

Improving calibration over texts by providing standards both with and without idea-units

This study aims at improving calibration accuracy, which is the match between estimated performance and actual performance. In our experiment, one hundred and twenty-seven university students read texts and learned definitions. The students recalled these definitions during a test and made performance judgements. After recalling their definitions half of the students received full-definition standards, stating what the correct definition should have been. The other half of the students received idea-unit standards: The correct definition was parsed into units that had to be present. Providing standards improved calibration accuracy not only on current texts, but also on new, subsequent texts. Especially the calibration of low performing students benefitted from receiving both idea-unit and full-definition standards. Furthermore, over multiple texts, students who received idea-unit standards benefitted more than students receiving full-definition standards. This study is among the first to show the effect of standards on calibration on new texts and underscores the importance of self-testing.     

Detection and Selection Decisions with Conditional Feedback: Interaction of Task Uncertainty and Base Rate

Effects of task uncertainty on decision thresholds in a multiple cue decision task were examined under two types of feedback and three base rate conditions. In most such decision experiments, participants receive feedback after every trial (full feedback) with a single (usually .5) base rate. Our experiment explored conditional (decision‐contingent) feedback, in a task representing a detection problem (passenger screening) in which the decision maker receives no feedback unless the decision is positive (search the passenger). Increased uncertainty made all dependent measures worse. Task uncertainty had detrimental effects on both judgment and decision making, and interacted with effects of feedback and base rate. Decision performance was better with full feedback than with conditional feedback, but not by much. There may be no single unifying explanation for results of our base rate manipulation. Conditional feedback generally resulted in fewer positive decisions than full feedback, but not in the low (.1) base rate condition. Results provide partial support for constructivist encoding and for accuracy maximization with moderate and high base rates, but not with a low base rate. Our results indicated lower selection rates with conditional feedback compared with full feedback in moderate and high base rate conditions, and a more exploratory strategy with higher selection rates with conditional feedback compared with full feedback when base rate was low. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

积极情绪反馈对注意捕获影响的实验研究

目的：研究采用“学习-测试”范式,通过3个实验探讨积极社会情绪反馈对注意捕获的影响。方法：实验1,在学习阶段做出反应后,分别给予积极情绪和中性情绪反馈,探讨积极情绪和中性情绪捕获注意的情况;实验2,学习阶段做出反应后,没有任何情绪反馈;实验3,改变学习阶段积极情绪和中性情绪反馈图片出现的频率,探讨图片出现频率对注意捕获的影响。结果：（1）与中性情绪相比,积极情绪捕获了较多注意（实验1）;（2）无情绪反馈时,经过多次练习的刺激作为干扰刺激也捕获到了注意（实验2）;（3）积极情绪影响刺激注意优先性的过程还受到积极情绪图片出现频率的影响（实验3）。结论：积极情绪捕获注意的机制中,也有自上而下目标驱动的机制在起作用;情绪图片出现的频率也会影响社社会情绪对注意的捕获。     

The game is afoot: A response to three insightful commentaries

This is an author response to commentaries on our original article (Wu, Sheppard & Mitchell, 2016). We abstract two main themes from the commentaries, and they are as follows: (1) What kind of clues in target behaviour allow perceivers to infer target EQ? And related with this, by what process do perceivers infer the target's EQ? (2) Do features of the target group naturally lead to a U‐shaped function, whereby it is easy for perceivers to identify those at the extremes but not those in the middle of the continuum?