Promoting fan engagement: An exploration of the fundamental motives for sport consumption amongst premier league football spectators

The aim of this study was to examine whether fan engagement could be predicted by the motivational dimensions of sport consumption. A sample of 806 football sport fans (African = 85%, male = 67.4%, part of an organised supporters club = 57.6%) were participants. They completed the Fan Engagement Scale (FES), the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (MSSC) and a biographical questionnaire. Structural equation modelling was applied to evaluate the postulated regressive paths between the motivational dimensions for sports consumption and fan engagement. The motivational dimensions for sport consumption were clustered into personal and game-related factors. Both these clusters of factors were predictive of fan engagement. Customer engagement (CE) theory appears to explain the findings.     

On the Grammar of Politics—or Why Conservatives Prefer Nouns

Previous research indicates that political conservatism is associated with epistemic needs for structure and certainty (Jost et al., 2003) and that nouns elicit clearer and more definite perceptions of reality than other parts of speech (Carnaghi et al., 2008). We therefore hypothesized that conservatives would exhibit preferences for nouns (vs. verbs and adjectives), insofar as nouns are better suited to satisfy epistemic needs. In Study 1, we observed that social conservatism was associated with noun preferences in Polish and that personal need for structure accounted for the association between ideology and grammatical preferences. In Study 2, conducted in Arabic, social conservatism was associated with a preference for the use of nominal sentences (composed of nouns only) over verbal sentences (which included verbs and adjectives). In Study 3, we found that more conservative U.S. presidents used greater proportions of nouns in major speeches, and this effect was related to integrative complexity. We discuss the possibility that conservative ideology is linked to grammatical preferences that foster feelings of stability and predictability.     

Comparing OECD PISA Reading in English to Other Languages: Identifying Potential Sources of Non-Invariance

The use of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) across nations, cultures, and languages has been criticized. The key criticisms point to the linguistic and cultural biases potentially underlying the design of reading comprehension tests, raising doubts about the legitimacy of comparisons across economies. Our research focused on the type and magnitude of invariance or non-invariance in the PISA Reading Comprehension test by language, culture, and economic development relative to performance of the Australian English-speaking reference group used to develop the tests. Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis based on means and covariance structure (MACS) modeling was used to establish a d_MACS effect size index for each economy for the degree of non-invariance. Only three wealthy, English-speaking countries had scalar invariance with Australia. Moderate or large effects were observed in just 31% of the comparisons. PISA index of economic, social and cultural status had a moderate inverse correlation with dMACS suggesting that socioeconomic resourcing of education played a significant role in measurement invariance, while educational practice and language factors seemed to play a further small role in non-invariance. Alternative approaches to reporting PISA results consistent with non-invariance are suggested.     

结构需求:概念、测量及与相关变量的关系

结构需求是个体对简单结构、清晰有条理的事物与环境的偏爱和需要,其本质是一种动机,个体通常会以结构严密、有条理或简化复杂信息的认知加工方式将其表现出来。结构需求存在着个体差异性。高结构需求水平的个体能够简化复杂的信息和环境,以清晰和简单的表征与描述去理解、建构他们的世界,从而减少认知资源的支出和消耗,提高认知操作的效率,维持认知与行为倾向的内在稳定。研究者梳理了结构需求的概念内涵、理论基础,介绍了两种主要的结构需求测量工具(PNS-12量表,PNS-11量表),以及结构需求的相关研究,分别从结构需求的前因变量、结果变量的角度对其相关研究进行了阐述。未来研究应深入探究结构需求的概念与结构,拓展其研究方法,研发更加有效的测评工具,深入探讨其影响机制,开展结构需求的中国化研究。     

Argumentational Integrity: A Training Program for Dealing with Unfair Argumentative Contributions

In this article we present a training program based on the empirical research conducted in the project 'argumentational integrity'. After a brief sketch of the problem dimensions concerning unfair argumentation we give an overview of the training concept and the underlying empirical research. Exemplification of the instructional design is given for the second and the fifth training dimension (standards of argumentational integrity and reactions to unfair contributions). Finally we indicate how the training is to be evaluated and present initial results demonstrating that in comparison with an untrained control group participants in the training significantly improve their skills in identifying and naming argumentative rule violations.     

'I'm Just Saying . . .': Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity

Examining discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987) in two transcribed discussions of controversial issues in an undergraduate 'critical thinking' class, we note frequent uses of 'I'm just saying' and related metadiscursive expressions (I'm/we're saying, I'm/we're not saying, etc.). Our central claim is that these 'saying' expressions are pragmatic devices by which speakers claim 'all along' to have held a consistent argumentative standpoint, one that continues through the discussion unless changed for good reasons. Through close analysis of a series of discourse examples, we show how these discourse markers are used to display continuity, deflect counterarguments, and acknowledge the force of counterarguments while preserving continuity. In a concluding section we reflect critically on the use of these continuity markers with regard to four pragmatic functions that they potentially serve: to specify and clarify argumentative standpoints, to acknowledge a presumption of standpoint continuity, to acknowledge a normative expectation that discussion participants should have standpoints, and to avoid overt disagreement while saving face.     

All on the Same Side: Reflections on the Dialogue Between Science and Religion

The 'war' between religion and science is winding down, creating new opportunities for fruitful dialogue. The foundations of indirect religion-science dialogue, where the perspectives of the two disciplines illuminate some third subject, are not well established. A detailed comparison of the Roman Catholic bishops' dialogues and a similar program within the American Association for the Advancement of Science illustrates the variety in formalscience-religion interactions and reveals much about the promise, achievements, and limitations of different approaches. Success depends in large part on controlling the diversity of the dialogue group, choosing topics carefully, and adopting positive and cooperative attitudes.     

Pabiku and Ga Ti Ga: Two Mechanisms Infants Use to Learn About the World

Some of the things that adults learn about language, and about the world, are very specific, whereas others are more abstract or rulelike. This article reviews evidence showing that infants, too, can very rapidly acquire both specific and abstract information, and considers the mechanisms that infants might use in doing so.     

生命意义的内涵、测量及功能

研究者通常用目的和含义来定义生命意义,或者把它定义为多维度的结构。认知、动机和情感是被提及最多的生命意义的组成维度。动机和认知维度得到了较多研究者的认可,而情感维度存在较大争议。生命意义是幸福不可或缺的元素,它能够影响许多与幸福有关的变量。目前的研究对生命意义的动机维度(生命意义寻求)及如何获得和提高生命意义研究较少,今后的研究可针对这两方面开展。     

Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare

Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.