Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies

A critical tenet of cost-benefit theories of decision strategy choice is that decision makers’ perceptions of accuracy and effort determine strategy selection. However, little research has been conducted on human perceptions of decision strategy accuracy and effort. Instead, researchers have substituted deductively derived inferences on strategy accuracy and effort for perceptions in interpreting decision processes. In this study, we used a survey to study perceptions of decision strategies. The results indicate that participants as a group understood the accuracy and effort dimensions of decision strategies. The participants’ perceptions of the accuracy and effort of various decision strategies largely agreed with researchers’ deductions. However, there was substantial variation across individuals in perceptions of various decision strategies and in the composition of efficient frontiers of decision strategies.     

Persuasive Paradoxes in Cicero's Speeches

The paper first presents a short survey of ancient and modern logical, rhetorical and argumentative approaches (e.g. Aristotle, Quintilian, Quine, Anscombre and Ducrot) studying the properties of paradoxical utterances. This survey is followed by a tentative definition of paradoxes as seemingly contradictory utterances triggering conversational implicatures in the sense of Grice. A specific group of paradoxes, namely, persuasive paradoxes, is further characterized by the specific implicatures which they trigger: the implicatures of persuasive paradoxes serve the interest of the (political) speaker because they either convey a sharp criticism of the political opponent(s) or praise the political activities of the speaker in a highly effective way.The second part of the paper takes a corpus of about 80 paradoxical utterances from Cicero's speeches to show how they are used 1. for a devastating criticism of Cicero's political enemies, 2. a milder form of criticism in the case of his friends, when their political activities have failed, 3. a praise of successful policies of Cicero and his political friends and 4. a defense of unsuccessful activities started by Cicero and his friends.     

Authority-based Argumentative Strategies: A Model for their Evaluation

In this paper, I try to develop an informal model for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative strategies based on active authorities. The explanations necessary to understand the idea of the model and what is modelled are given through the development of the paper. I first give an example of argumentative activities. After that, the main assumption of the model is given. In the third part, the relevant aspects of the argumentative activity are analysed, while the principles of the evaluation are explained in the fourth part. The informal model is presented in the fifth part. In the final remarks, the suggestions for further work are given, as well as a comparison with some related recent works in argumentation theory.     

学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉

以141名中小学生为被试,采用访谈法和问卷法研究学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉及其公平观念。结果表明：(1)学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉存在差异．同伴辅导是学生认为最公平的教学调节策略,其次是丰富。高中生与初中生和小学生对加速和等待两种教学调节策略的公平知觉存在差异。(2)学生的公平观念存在年级差异,公平知觉与公平观念有关。     

3、4岁儿童数数的规则及其策略运用的研究

数数能力是儿童用于建构其数学知识系统的重要工具,是儿童早期获得的最基本的数认知能力之一。本研究以234名3、4岁儿童为被试,采用个别测查法对儿童数数的规则及其策略运用进行了考察。研究发现：(1)随着数列数目的增大,3、4岁儿童数数精确性呈下降趋势,但4岁儿童在各项任务上的数数精确性显着高于3岁儿童;(2)3、4岁儿童在数7、10、15、30任务上的错误表现有显着差别;(3）3、4岁儿童数数策略运用存在显着差别．协方差分析显示。策略使用在数7和数10任务上具有显着效应。     

少数民族认同研究的现状

从“认同“的概念界定及其嬗变出发,介绍了西方研究者在民族认同的发展、民族认同与心理健康、民族认同与文化适应、民族认同与人格发展等方面的研究,并且概括了民族认同的一些研究策略.文章最后指出,在西部大开发的社会背景下,民族心理研究,尤其是宏观层面民族认同心理的研究对我国的现实意义.     

大学生应对策略的特点及其与社会支持水平关系的研究

以423名大学生为被试,采用问卷法考察了大学生应对策略的特点、性别差异及其与社会支持之间的关系.研究发现:(1)大学生更多地倾向于使用积极解决问题和寻求情感支持的应对策略,而转移注意力和消极解决问题应对策略相对较少;(2)社会支持总体感受水平与积极解决问题和寻求情感支持的应对策略显著正相关,而与消极解决问题和转移注意力的应对策略显著负相关;对男生而言,社会支持感受在积极解决问题应对策略上贡献率相对较大;对女生而言,社会支持感受在寻求情感支持应对策略上贡献率相对较大;(3)不仅不同性别大学生的应对策略存在显著差异,而且不同社会支持感受水平的同性别大学生的应对策略也存在显著差异.男生比女生采取更多的消极解决问题策略,而采取更少的寻求情感支持应对策略;不论男生或女生高社会支持感受组均比低社会支持感受组采用更多的积极解决问题和寻求情感支持的应对策略,而更少的采用转移注意力和消极解决问题的应对策略.     

Alternatives to Randomized Experiments

ABSTRACT— Randomized experiments are preferred for making inferences about causality when they can be implemented and their assumptions are met. Yet assumptions can fail (e.g., attrition, treatment noncompliance) or randomization may be unethical or infeasible. I describe alternative design and statistical approaches that permit testing causal hypotheses and present current empirical evidence related to alternative designs. Alternative designs permit a wider range of research questions to be answered and permit more direct generalization of causal effects; however, when using such designs, estimates of the magnitude of the causal effect may be more uncertain.