Military leaders and followers – do they have different decision styles?

There are five different, although not mutually exclusive, styles exhibited by military officers when making decisions: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous ( Scott & Bruce, 1995 ). The purpose was to investigate if elected leaders of military planning teams had a different configuration of decision-making styles than their team members. Participants were 98 army captains organized in 16 brigade-level planning teams. The results indicate that team leaders tended to be more spontaneous and less rational, dependent and avoidant in their style configuration than their team members. One possible explanation is that the style configuration exhibited by many of the elected leaders comes through to others as forcefulness and decisiveness and that such a profile is in line with a general leadership culture. The results also provide support for the General Decision-Making Style inventory as a measurement of decision styles, because they suggest that the self-reports coincide with displayed, observable behavior.     

论相对于生产力的"自然破坏力"

从历史到现代,人类实践体系中总是不时地孕育出某种破坏性力量(本文称之为“自然破坏力”),这种破坏力与一直被视为实践积极成果的物质生产力密切相关,共同影响社会发展。以前我们仅仅正面地看待实践,遗忘了孕育出“自然破坏力”的实践的负面性。其实,引入“生产力”与“自然破坏力”的对立,才能使生产力和生产关系的理论对于现代发展更富有解释力。     

自主欺骗决策过程与结果评价的ERPs研究

本研究基于事件相关电位技术,以32名大学生为研究对象,采用2(诱发条件：高奖赏、低奖赏)×3(反馈类型：欺骗成功、欺骗失败、诚实)的组内实验设计,以点判断任务操控被试的自主欺骗水平,并结合欺骗及时反馈范式来操纵被试的结果评价。结果发现：(1)在决策过程,做出欺骗决策比诚实决策诱发更大波幅的P300;(2)在结果评价过程,相比欺骗成功反馈和诚实反馈,欺骗失败反馈诱发更负的FRN波幅。结果显示个体做出欺骗决策比诚实决策需要更多的注意资源参与和心理努力,并且对欺骗失败反馈的敏感度远高于欺骗成功反馈和诚实反馈。这一定程度上揭示了个体做出欺骗决策和面对欺骗结果时的心理和神经机制,为教育者采取必要措施来降低和预防青少年欺骗行为奠定了研究基础。     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Uh</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Um</Emphasis> Revisited: Are They Interjections for Signaling Delay?

Clark and Fox Tree (2002) have presented empirical evidence, based primarily on the London–Lund corpus (LL; Svartvik & Quirk, 1980), that the fillers uh and um are conventional English words that signal a speaker’s intention to initiate a minor and a major delay, respectively. We present here empirical analyses of uh and um and of silent pauses (delays) immediately following them in six media interviews of Hillary Clinton. Our evidence indicates that uh and um cannot serve as signals of upcoming delay, let alone signal it differentially: In most cases, both uh and um were not followed by a silent pause, that is, there was no delay at all; the silent pauses that did occur after um were too short to be counted as major delays; finally, the distributions of durations of silent pauses after uh and um were almost entirely overlapping and could therefore not have served as reliable predictors for a listener. The discrepancies between Clark and Fox Tree’s findings and ours are largely a consequence of the fact that their LL analyses reflect the perceptions of professional coders, whereas our data were analyzed by means of acoustic measurements with the PRAAT software (www.praat.org). A comparison of our findings with those of O’Connell, Kowal, and Ageneau (2005) did not corroborate the hypothesis of Clark and Fox Tree that uh and um are interjections: Fillers occurred typically in initial, interjections in medial positions; fillers did not constitute an integral turn by themselves, whereas interjections did; fillers never initiated cited speech, whereas interjections did; and fillers did not signal emotion, whereas interjections did. Clark and Fox Tree’s analyses were embedded within a theory of ideal delivery that we find inappropriate for the explication of these phenomena.     

前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制:来自眼动的证据

基于重复前瞻记忆目标范式和视觉搜索范式,采用多种类型刺激呈现的眼动测量方式考察前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制。研究采用2（条件）×5（刺激类型）的混合实验设计,显著条件下前瞻记忆目标为红色,非显著条件下前瞻记忆目标和其他字母的颜色均为白色,背景为黑色。结果显示,显著和非显著条件下前瞻记忆完成阶段中对原前瞻记忆目标的反应时慢于控制条件,而且前瞻记忆目标在进行中任务目标之后的反应时慢于进行中任务目标之前的刺激类型。另外,非显著条件下,前瞻记忆目标在进行中任务目标之前和之后的眼动数据没有差异;显著条件下的注视点数量多于控制条件,前瞻记忆目标在进行中任务目标之后的注视点数量多于进行中任务目标之前的刺激类型。结果说明,前瞻记忆任务完成以后,在随后的阶段中遇到原前瞻记忆目标时被试会投入认知资源对其进行抑制,支持抑制加工。     

自发性观点采择对宽恕不同程度人际伤害的影响

设计并采用“换位体验”的社会互动范式,结合自陈报告法和情感错误归因程序的内隐态度研究范式,通过2个实验比较了面对不同程度的人际伤害,自发性观点采择和语言劝说这两种不同的人际伤害消解方式分别对外显和内隐宽恕的影响。结果发现：无论面对何种程度的人际伤害,（1）与自发性观点采择相比,语言劝说可以有效的促进外显宽恕;（2）自发性观点采择可以有效减少负面内隐态度,促进内隐宽恕,而语言劝说会提高负面内隐态度,阻碍内隐宽恕。该研究结果说明不同人际伤害消解方式对内隐和外显宽恕的影响是不同的,同时也证明了观点采择可以在人际互动中自发产生,并且会对人际关系产生隐性影响。     

观点采择是否一定促进内隐宽恕?——受害者对伤害动机认同的调节作用

以往研究多认为观点采择可有效促进宽恕,近期研究则开始关注观点采择诱发宽恕等亲社会行为的边界条件。结合“换位体验”和内隐态度测量范式,本研究考察了受害者对伤害动机的认同在被动和自发观点采择影响内隐宽恕过程中的调节作用。实验1发现当人际伤害中存在人们无法认同的恶意不道德动机时,被动和自发观点采择都抑制了受害者对施害者的内隐宽恕且后者的抑制效应更显著。实验2则进一步操纵了不同类型受害者对施害者伤害动机的认同差异,低认同组与实验1结果相同,即被动和自发观点采择中都抑制了内隐宽恕且后者的抑制效应更显著,但高认同组在两种观点采择中都促进了内隐宽恕且二者的促进效应无显著差异。本研究揭示了伤害动机认同在不同类型观点采择影响内隐宽恕过程中起到的调节作用,进一步丰富了对观点采择和宽恕间复杂关系的认识。