耐挫心理结构的探索：基于大学生群体的测量

采用质性和量化研究方法,探讨耐挫心理的结构及因素间关系。研究1采用质性研究方法,对23名被试进行深度访谈,结果发现：（1）耐挫心理的结构由坚信、乐观、可控和醒悟构成;（2）坚信、可控和醒悟共同影响乐观。研究2采用量化研究方法,基于研究1的耐挫心理结构编制大学生耐挫心理量表,对大学生进行施测。结果发现：（1）耐挫心理四因素结构有良好的拟合指数;（2）醒悟正向预测坚信,进而正向预测可控,最终正向预测乐观;（3）量表有良好的信度和效度。结果表明,耐挫心理的结构包含坚信、乐观、可控和醒悟四个因素;大学生耐挫心理量表符合心理测量学要求,可作为未来研究的工具。     

Development of rules and strategies: balancing the old and the new

The experiments described in the lead articles replicate findings from previous studies of development of knowledge about balance scales, add several new findings, and raise four key questions: (a) How can rule use best be assessed? (b) How can we reconcile systematic use of rules with variable use of strategies? (c) When do children begin to use rules? and (d) How do children generate new rules? In this Reflection, we summarize current understanding of development of knowledge about balance scales and consider each of the four questions.     

Cultural Identity and Groups of Belonging

Research into the cultural foundations of psychic structure must take place simultaneously at the individual, group, and psychosocial level of analysis. Identity, as both an individual and a collective phenomenon, and the primacy of the group dimension become manifest in the imaginary space created by groups, in Bion's protomental system. Cultural incorporates function like somatic processes and establish the synchrony of all cultural interactions. Individuation would thus emerge from the shared common base, which in turn is related to the individual's internalization of his group of belonging. A distinction is drawn between primary groups of belonging, which are extensions of family structure and supply the group's cultural identity, and secondary belonging groups, which are instituted by the society. The relationship between transcultural experiences, aiming at achieving unity, and intercultural experiences, which recognize limits and differences, is a source of tension for the individual and the group. Examples are given of the function of excitation screens within instituted groups and of the cultural dimension of the analytic setting.     

小学儿童对日常生活事件时间关系推理能力的初探

探查小学儿童对含有“在什么之前”“同时”日常生活事件时间关系的推理发展过程及其影响因素。被试为7岁、9岁、11岁3个年龄组共54名小学儿童,每个年龄组18人。4种问题模式分别为带有传递关系的单模型问题、带有无关前提的单模型问题、含两个前提的单模型问题、有肯定答案的多模型问题。每种问题模式含3种具体探察任务。主要研究结果表明：在本实验条件下,（1）儿童对事件时间顺序关系的推理从7岁到9岁有快速发展的趋势;（2）单模型和多模型任务无显著差异,模型数量似乎不是影响儿童推理成绩的关键因素;（3）儿童能够主动采用5种策略解决问题。逆向关系传递策略是问题解决的有效策略。     

关于胚胎干细胞研究的一场伦理之争

关于“人兔细胞融合”的伦理之争,主要围绕“人兔细胞融合”实验是否违背伦理,要不要经过知情同意,以及科学技术与伦理道德的关系等问题而进行。这场讨论是正常的,健康的,有益的,倘能加以认真总结,将有助于推进学术争鸣。     

Conflict of interest: the importance of potential

The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) takes the issue of conflict of interest very seriously. The overall aim is to preserve a climate in which personal and organisational innovation can flourish while ensuring that potential conflicts are disclosed and identified and conflicts are either avoided or managed with integrity. The approach needs to encompass the MRC’s various responsibilities and the levels at which conflicts might arise: MRC staff (scientists and administrators); the governing Council; research Boards and committees; external peer-reviewers; and applicants for funding. To achieve its goals, the MRC has issued practical guidance on various aspects of conflict of interest. For the future, the MRC has identified the continuing commercialisation of science and the increasing involvement of lay people in scientific decision-making as special challenges in this area. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.     

The continuing need for disinterested research

For scientific knowledge to be trustworthy, it needs to be dissociated from material interests. Disinterested research also performs other important non-instrumental roles. In particular, academic science has traditionally provided society with reliable, imaginative public knowledge and independent, self-critical expertise. But this type of science is not compatible with the practice of instrumental research, which is typically proprietary, prosaic, pragmatic and partisan. With ever-increasing dependence on commercial or state funding, all modes of knowledge production are merging into a new, ‘post-academic’ research culture which is dominated by utilitarian goals. Growing concern about conflicts of interest is thus a symptom of deep-seated malaise in science and medicine. An expanded version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.     

Individual and institutional conflict of interest: policy review by research universities in the United States

This paper is a discussion of efforts to manage real and potential conflicts of interest in university research in the United States. The focus is on the report by an Association of American Universities (AAU) task force that addresses both individual and institutional conflict of interest issues. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.     

Beyond conflict of interest: the responsible conduct of research

This paper reports data and scholarly opinion that support the perception of systemic flaws in the management of scientific professions and the research enterprise; explores the responsibility that professional status places on the scientific professions, and elaborates the concept of the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Data are presented on research misconduct, availability of research guidelines, and perceived research quality. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland, 5–6 April, 2002. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of Research Integrity, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or any other federal agency.