幼儿对基于信念的惊奇情绪的认知发展

采用简化的错误信念任务,考察了90名3~5岁幼儿对自己或他人信念证伪引发的惊奇情绪认知及其错误信念理解。结果显示,3~5岁幼儿对自身或是故事主人公信念证伪之后的惊奇情绪理解表现出显著的发展趋势,其归因均以情境定向为主,只有极少数幼儿提到了相应的信念状态。3、4、5幼儿对他人、以及自身错误信念的认知基本是一致的,通过率分别为一半左右、76.7%、93.3%。幼儿对惊奇情绪产生原因的逆向推理能力在3~5岁之间获得了显著的发展,这一能力显著差于其错误信念认知,且略低于其顺向预测能力。这些结果揭示出幼儿很早就发展的心理理论以及心理表征技能在惊奇情绪理解中的作用     

What Are Degrees of Belief?

Probabilism is committed to two theses:

The Two Faces of Evidentialism

In this paper I hope to demonstrate two different (and seemingly independent) ways of interpreting the tenets of evidentialism and show why it is important to distinguish between them. These two ways correspond to those proposed by Feldman (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60, 667–695, 2000, Evidentialism: Essays in epistemology, Oxford University Press, 2004) and Adler (Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 267–285, 1999, Beliefs own ethics, MIT Press, 2002). Feldman’s way of interpreting evidentialism makes evidentialism a principle about epistemic justification, about what we ought to believe. Adler’s, on the other hand, makes evidentialism a principle about how we come to believe, what it is, broadly speaking, rational for us to believe. Having identified this difference, I consider two complaints levied against evidentialism, namely what I call the threshold problem and what I call the availability problem, and hope to show that: (a) only an independent, bracketed justification principle of evidentialism can deal with those problems; (b) the rationality principle of evidentialism is not in fact independent from the justification principle; (c) the rationality principle is hard to motivate; and that (d) in the final analysis the argument for the justification principle depends on the rationality principle. I thus conclude that although it may be convenient for evidentialists to treat these two principles as independent, such an independence cannot be maintained.

REPLY TO JULIA DRIVER,TIMM TRIPLETT,AND KATHLEEN WALLACE

Abstract: Julia Driver, Timm Triplett, and Kathleen Wallace challenge my account of moral arrogance, and Triplett and Wallace challenge its application to the problem of abortion. I try to show here that Driver's attempt to defend consequentialism from my charge that it promotes moral arrogance is successful only if consequentialism explicitly gives up what has been considered one of its major virtues. I acknowledge that Triplett has uncovered some unclarity in my claim that the moral acceptability of abortion is an unresolvable moral issue. I also acknowledge that Wallace has uncovered some unclarity in my account of moral arrogance. After clarifying that account, I try to meet her challenge to defend my claim that it is not morally arrogant for a state to place some restrictions on abortions.     

主观解释的新发展:主体交互解释

主体交互解释是主观解释的发展,它比主观解释具有更为明显的客观性。本文探讨了主体交互概率的测度,主体交互概率形成的条件,主体交互解释与人造客体概率解释一道构造的从主观向完全客观延伸的谱系,以及主体交互解释的恰当性问题。通过探讨这个新近兴起的理论,为人们在确定基本概率时提供了普遍的适用性并使人们避免了主观的随意性。     

我国当前大学生宗教信仰的研究论述

文章首先引出宗教这一概念,然后着重介绍了近年来我国在大学生宗教信仰研究方面取得的成果,主要涉及当前大学生宗教信仰的研究现状与特征以及宗教信仰的原因分析,最后从实证的角度,提出了一些针对正确引导大学生宗教信仰的措施与对策。     

Book Review

Book reviewed:
Eva Feder Kittay, Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency     

青少年核心信念挑战对创伤后成长的影响：反刍与社会支持的作用

采用核心信念问卷、反刍问卷、社会支持问卷和创伤后成长问卷, 以汶川地震4年半后的354名中学生为被试, 考察其核心信念挑战、侵入性反刍、主动反刍、社会支持与创伤后成长之间的关系。结果发现, 地震4年半后青少年创伤后成长的整体水平较高, 其中女生高于男生, 初二学生相对低于高年级学生。结构方程模型的结果显示, 侵入性反刍和主动反刍在核心信念挑战与创伤后成长之间起部分中介作用, 核心信念挑战可以直接正向预测创伤后成长, 也可以通过侵入性反刍对创伤后成长起负向预测作用、通过主动反刍对创伤后成长起正向预测作用、通过侵入性反刍经主动反刍正向预测创伤后成长; 社会支持在侵入性反刍影响创伤后成长的直接路径上不起调节作用, 但在侵入性反刍经主动反刍对创伤后成长的间接路径上起调节作用, 具体表现为侵入性反刍对主动反刍的正向预测作用随着社会支持的增加而降低。     

公正世界信念对大学生助人意愿的影响：责任归因和帮助代价的作用

采用个人公正世界信念量表、自编的助人假设情境,先后以198名、415名大学生为被试,通过两项研究考察了责任归因和帮助代价在个人公正世界信念影响个体助人意愿中的作用。结果表明：（1）个人公正世界信念及个体对受困者遭遇的外归因,均可以显著正向预测个体的助人意愿,但个人公正世界信念与责任归因之间无显著相关。控制性别、年级和社会称许性的影响后,个体对受困者遭遇的外归因及个人公正世界信念分别可以解释5.7%和6%的变异;（2）个人公正世界信念对助人意愿的作用受到帮助代价与责任归因的调节,只有在低代价、外归因的条件下,个人公正世界信念越强,助人意愿才越高。这些结果对亲社会行为的促进具有重要启示。