Truth and democratic education

The connection of education to democracy is an issue of central importance to communities committed to liberty and justice. In her influential book Democratic Education Amy Gutmann addresses this connection. In doing so she takes up a position regarding democracies and the teaching of truth which is indefensible, and which removes any ban on manipulating citizens. Also indefensible is Gutmann's position concerning publicly-funded community colleges and universities. These she deems nonselective institutions; a mistake that obscures the unequal distribution of opportunities for democratically-required education. The outcome is to reveal Gutmann's analysis of democratic education and democratic participation to be, in important respects, inadequate.     

Socialization for the democratic personality in modern society

A comprehensive analysis of socialization requires a complex model that both explicates and synthesizes the various subprocesses involved in this phenomenon. Traditional concerns with socialization that have focused almost exclusively on its objective functions, that is, on those which serve society and its institutions, need to be complemented by an equal emphasis on subjective functions in terms of the sociological and psychological development of the individual. Chiefly relevant in this latter respect is the production of basic human needs and the consequences that result from their inadequate gratification in unauthentic and/or unresponsive societies. One such outcome that is particularly crucial to both personal and societal function is that of alienation, which can be assessed specifically in terms of its significance for civic participation. Our model recognizes the limits of both human systems and social systems; and, in terms of the principles of authenticity and responsivity, it articulates the linkage among these systems constituting the essence of socialization. Our model also provides an implicit clarification of the nature and meaning of citizenship in a democracy, which by definition should be a responsive society, and delineates the required sociopsychological images for maximizing the role of political participation.     

组织社会化视角下员工组织公民行为动态变化趋势及其形成机制

日益复杂多变的市场竞争环境对组织的灵活性和适应性都提出了更高的要求, 员工的组织公民行为在这一背景下显得尤为重要, 因它能有效提高组织在不确定环境下的生存能力和核心竞争力、提升组织的绩效水平。虽然已有大量研究关注员工的组织公民行为, 但研究者多采用相对静态的研究范式, 而忽视了组织公民行为的长期动态变化趋势。基于组织社会化视角, 本研究重点关注新员工和工作变更员工组织公民行为的长期动态变化趋势、探索影响组织公民行为动态变化趋势的内在机制和边界条件, 以期为培养和激发员工持续性高水平的组织公民行为提供可参考的理论依据。     

受害者视角下职场不文明行为对组织公民行为影响的双路径机制

本文基于资源保存理论,探讨职场不文明行为对组织公民行为的影响机制及作用边界。通过问卷调查315份员工和领导的配对样本数据,结果表明：职场不文明行为负向预测组织公民行为,情绪耗竭、组织自尊中介了职场不文明行为与组织公民行为间的关系;心理韧性调节了情绪耗竭、组织自尊在二者间的中介作用。     

Attributional style of the mother as a predictor of aggressive behavior of the child

The association between the life orientation and attributional styles of a mother and the aggressiveness of her child were studied in 61 mothers and their children, 23 boys and 38 girls, mean age 6.6 years (range 4–13 years). The mother's life orientation and attributional styles were established during interviews using the life-style questionnaire, and a child's aggressiveness was evaluated by the mother using the Health Examination Survey. The factors assessing life orientation were lack of personal control, causal unstability, internal locus of causality, personal responsibility, and democratic educational attitudes. The mother's personal responsibility and internal causal attributions were related to nonaggressiveness in the child, whereas mothers with a lack of personal control were likely to have aggressive children. Educational attitudes were of no importance. The results showed no sex- or age-related variance.     

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Scholars are paying increasing attention to the “dark side” of citizenship behavior. One aspect of this dark side that has received relatively scant attention is “helping pressure”—an employee's perception that s/he is being encouraged to, or otherwise feels that s/he should, enact helping behavior at work. Drawing from theory associated with work stress, we examine affective and cognitive mechanisms that potentially explain why helping pressure, counterintuitively, may lead employees to engage in deviant behavior instead. Beyond examining these possible mechanisms, we also answer calls to identify a potential buffer to these effects. Drawing from self-determination theory, we examine how an employee's intrinsic motivation for citizenship may lessen the deleterious consequences of helping pressure at work. In two studies (a within-individual experience-sampling study and a two-wave between-individual study), we find consistent evidence that helping pressure has a positive indirect relationship with deviant behavior through increased negative affect. Further, we find evidence that intrinsic motivation for citizenship weakens the positive relationship of helping pressure with negative affect, buffering the indirect effect on subsequent deviant behavior. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the study of helping pressure at work are discussed.     

If you want to be one of us,then become like us: The evaluation of naturalization applicants by host nationals

Immigrant naturalization is a rite of passage, making assimilationist attitudes particularly pronounced among host nationals. Three experimental studies investigate whether heritage culture maintenance violates expectations that citizenship should be deserved by proving strong attachment to the host nation (i.e., neoliberal communitarianism). Study 1 (N = 293) demonstrates that naturalization applicants’ high degree of heritage culture maintenance impairs application evaluations. Perceived attachment to the host nation and citizenship deservingness mediated this effect. Study 2 (N = 220) replicates results across two national contexts and reveals that heritage culture maintenance impairs evaluations only among naturalization applicants from devalued countries. Study 3 (N = 117) manipulates attachment to the host nation and shows that perceived citizenship deservingness mediates the negative effects of naturalization applicants' low attachment to the host nation on application evaluations. Overall, assimilationist attitudes among host nationals are best explained by the combination of neoliberal and communitarian criteria of evaluation.     

More Royalist Than the King? Immigration Policy Attitudes Among Naturalized Citizens

Social psychological research has analyzed immigration attitudes mostly from the perspective of natives without an immigrant background. Nevertheless, an increasing number of migrants obtain national citizenship and take a stance towards immigration policies. By studying immigration policy attitudes reported by naturalized citizens, this article develops a dual-pathway model of immigrant political incorporation featuring pathways of either absorption or transformation. Based on a unique sample of immigrants who just accomplished the naturalization procedure (N = 566), we investigate participants' preferences for permissive or restrictive immigration policies as a function of their naturalization motives and expectations about how immigrants should acculturate in the receiving society (i.e., acculturation orientations). Our findings provide evidence for both processes of political absorption and transformation. On the one hand, belongingness motives underlying naturalization were connected to orientations towards host culture adoption, which in turn predicted support for restrictive immigration policies. On the other hand, instrumental motives were connected to orientations towards heritage culture maintenance, which in turn predicted support for permissive immigration policies. To conclude, we discuss the social psychological dynamics involved in the transition from national outsiders to national insiders and highlight the effects of naturalization on power relations between national majority and immigrant minority groups.     

“Hands up Who Wants to Die?”: Primoratz on Responsibility and Civilian Immunity in Wartime

The question of the morality of war is something of an embarrassment to liberal political thinkers. A philosophical tradition which aspires to found its preferred institutions in respect for individual autonomy, contract, and voluntary association, is naturally confronted by a phenomenon that is almost exclusively explained and justified in the language of States, force and territory. But the apparent difficulties involved in providing a convincing account of nature and ethics of war in terms of relations between individuals has not prevented liberal theorists from attempting this task. This paper examines a recent attempt by Igor Primoratz to sketch out the implications of a consistent liberalism for just war doctrine and, in particular, as regards the question of who may be a legitimate target of attack in wartime. Primoratz’s paper itself is a critique of Michael Waltzer’s authoritative exposition of just war theory for failing to be sufficiently and consistently liberal. The debate between these two authors is a productive site for investigating the potential and limitations of liberal theories of just war.     

Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intentions: Fair Rewards Versus Fair Treatment

Abstract

In a sample of 114 employees from various industries, organizations, and positions, the likelihood of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) increased when employee perceptions of fair treatment by supervisors became more positive. Perceptions of fair rewards and fair formal procedures were not predictors of OCB intentions. After the authors controlled for established patterns of OCB and demographic characteristics, interactional justice perceptions were significantly related to the intention of performing specific organizationally beneficial activities.