Resource loss,religiousness, health,and posttraumatic growth following Hurricane Katrina

This study examined associations among resource loss, religiousness (including general religiousness, religious comfort, and religious strain), posttraumatic growth (PTG), and physical and mental health among a sample of Mississippi university students soon after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast in 2005. Resource loss was negatively associated with health, but positively associated with PTG. Religious comfort was associated with positive outcomes, and religious strain was associated with negative outcomes. Religious comfort buffered the negative effects of resource loss on emotional health. Ancillary analyses indicated that associations between resource loss and health were mediated by religious strain. Implications of this research are described for mental health practitioners engaged in disaster recovery work.     

The Campbell Paradigm as a Conceptual Alternative to the Expectation of Hypocrisy in Contemporary Attitude Research

Hypocrisy—professing a general attitude without implementing corresponding attitude-relevant behavior—is, according to Ajzen and Fishbein (2005), commonly found in attitude research that aims to explain individual behavior. We conducted two studies that adopted the Campbell paradigm, an alternative to the traditional understanding of attitudes. In a laboratory experiment, we found that specific attitude-relevant cooperation in a social dilemma was a function of people’s pre-existing general environmental attitude. In a quasi-experiment, we corroborated the reverse as well; engagement in attitude-relevant dietary practices was indicative of environmental attitude. When using Campbellian attitude measures, there is no room for hypocrisy: People put their general attitudes into specific attitude-relevant practices, and differences in people’s general attitudes can be derived from their attitude-relevant behavior.     

Examining the Ethics of Clinical Use of Unproven Interventions Outside of Clinical Trials During the Ebola Epidemic

The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa began in the spring of 2014 and has since caused the deaths of over 6,000 people. Since there are no approved treatments or prevention modalities specifically targeted at Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), debate has focused on whether unproven interventions should be offered to Ebola patients outside of clinical trials. Those engaged in the debate have responded rapidly to a complex and evolving crisis, however, and this debate has not provided much opportunity for in-depth analysis. Additionally, the existing literature on access to unproven therapies has focused on contexts like HIV/AIDS and oncology, which are very different than the Ebola epidemic. In this paper, we examine the ethical issues surrounding access to unproven therapies in the context of the recent Ebola outbreak to yield new insights about this controversial and unsettled issue. We argue first that, in this context, the interests of patients in obtaining access to unproven therapies are not fully aligned with the interests of their providers and drug developers. Second, we focus on the resource constraints facing providers, funders, and patients and conclude that they often counsel against the use of unproven interventions against EVD.     

Le soutien organisationnel perçu peut-il agir comme une ressource sociale ? Une analyse sous l’angle de la théorie de la conservation des ressources

This paper reports an empirical study in which perceived organizational support is considered as a social resource in a stress model conceived within the perspective of Conservation of Resources theory. A study conducted among 181 employees and their supervisors reveals that role stressors impact work outcomes through perceptions of anticipated or actual resource loss and lack of resource gains. Moreover, perceived organizational support exerts a moderating effect in the relationships between resource loss and lack of resource gains and emotional exhaustion, affective commitment, and job performance. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of the psychological mechanisms associated with perceived organizational support.     

压力使人短视?来自跨期决策的证据

跨期决策是指个体对不同时间点上的收益或损失进行的权衡和选择。本研究探讨了日常慢性压力知觉和实验室急性压力操作对跨期决策的影响。研究一通过问卷调查发现高压力感与跨期决策中的短期偏好有关;研究二采用社会压力测试范式(TSST)在实验室进行压力操作,同样发现压力组被试比控制组更偏好"小而近"的选项。研究认为,压力使人在跨期决策中倾向于短视选择,可能与双系统激活模式和自我控制资源损耗有关。     

Unfairness begets unfairness: Victim derogation bias in employee ratings

This research investigated criterion contamination in human resource evaluations, specifically victim derogation in which third parties (e.g., managers, co-workers) systematically undervalue the performance and potential of individuals who have previously suffered organizational injustices. A policy capturing design (Study 1) found that managers rated job applicants who had been treated unfairly by their previous employers as less suitable than fairly treated applicants, after objective performance information was controlled. In Study 2, the effect of unfair treatment on job applicant ratings was found to be moderated by managers’ just world beliefs, with applicant ratings reflecting more derogation among managers with higher (vs. lower) Belief in a Just World. In Study 3, the pattern of results from Study 2 was replicated in a performance evaluation context using peers as raters. Moreover, in Study 3 an intervention that activated raters’ moral identity was found to attenuate victim derogation bias.     

群体情境下儿童的分配公平性

群体情境下儿童的资源分配决策受到群体身份、群体地位和群体规范的影响。在群体因素与公平分配之间, 儿童或坚持公平正义, 或偏向群体利益。这三种群体因素对儿童的分配公平性均造成了影响; 个体因素也会影响群体情境下儿童的分配决策。未来研究应对群体因素多加关注, 通过操控分配情境中的群体信息, 尝试探讨三种群体因素之间的相互作用, 以进一步了解复杂的群体情境下儿童的分配公平性。群体情境下影响分配公平性的个体因素也是需要未来研究逐一验证和讨论的问题。     

企业组织变革特征、人力资源策略与变革应对行为的实验研究：组织学习的视角

在快速发展的全球化和知识经济背景下,各类组织急需通过变革创新来适应动态环境和开拓发展。本研究使用基于多案例的实验学习技术,研究与检验了公司组织变革的关键特征和人力资源策略与变革策略,特别关注了组织学习的关键作用。基于110项组织变革案例情节的内容分析,本研究验证了变革的四项主要特征：风险创新性、动态整合性、网络互动性和文化多样性。组织变革过程的有效人力资源策略包括培训发展、招聘配置和绩效薪酬。统计分析结果表明,组织绩效受到多重因素影响和组织学习的中介效应,而组织学习各个维度中,实验尝试学习的效应最显著。组织学习促进了两种变革策略的效能期望,即文化学习策略和团队协同策略。     

The give-or-take-some dilemma: An empirical investigation of a hybrid social dilemma

We describe and empirically investigate a hybrid social dilemma that merges give-some and take-some dilemmas by allowing individuals to choose to either give or to take resources from a shared resource pool. Study 1 finds that (a) group size increases the inequality among group members and the likelihood of creating the public good, while reducing the amount of wasted resources; (b) larger bonuses increase provision rates; and (c) asymmetry in the wealth distribution of the group members induces higher levels of inequality of the final outcomes. Following the logic of appropriateness, players with high (low) endowments were more likely to give toward (take from) the shared resource. Study 2 finds that the tendency of the players with high (low) endowments to give (take) is amplified as the difference between endowment levels increased, and the players’ behavior is correlated with, and predictable from, independent judgments of what is perceived as appropriate.     

Should I save or should I not kill? How people solve moral dilemmas depends on which rule is most accessible

The literature on how people solve moral dilemmas often focuses on situations in which individuals have to make a decision where different moral rules are in conflict. In some of these situations, such as in footbridge dilemmas, people have to choose between sacrificing a few people in order to save many. The present research focuses on how people decide what to do in dilemmas involving conflicting moral rules. We propose that the rule that is cognitively most accessible during the decision making process (e.g., “Save lives” or “Do not kill”) will influence how people solve these moral dilemmas. Three studies are reported that indeed demonstrate that the most accessible rule influences willingness to intervene within footbridge dilemmas. This effect is found even when the accessibility of the rule is induced subliminally.