The Role of Referent and Expert Power in Mutual Help

This study explored the roles of referent power (i.e., influence based on sense of identification) and expert power (i.e., influence based on knowledge and expertise) in Schizophrenics Anonymous (SA), a mutual-help group for persons experiencing a schizophrenia-related illness. The study describes SA participants' experience of referent and expert power with SA members, SA leaders, and with mental health professionals. It also examines whether or not referent and expert power ascribed to fellow SA participants predicts the perceived helpfulness of the group. One hundred fifty-six SA participants were surveyed. Participants reported experiencing higher levels of referent power with fellow SA members and leaders than with mental health professionals. They reported higher levels of expert power for mental health professionals and SA leaders than for SA members. The respondents' ratings of their SA group's helpfulness was significantly correlated with ratings of referent and expert power. Although expert power was the best independent predictor of helpfulness, a significant interaction between referent and expert power indicated that when members reported high referent power, expert power was not related to helpfulness. These results are interpreted to suggest that there are multiple forms of social influence at work in mutual help.     

国外积极偏离行为的研究述评

偏离行为的研究在社会学和组织行为学领域都有较丰富的成果,然而其关注点主要集中于对社会或组织产生负面作用的消极偏离行为。近年来相关领域的学者越来越关注积极偏离行为（Positive Deviance, PD）的研究。该文综述了关于积极偏离行为的定义的各方观点,同时分析了积极偏离行为与相似构念的差异,并综述了积极偏离行为的测量方式,以及积极偏离行为的前因变量和结果变量。最后对积极偏离行为未来的研究方向进行了展望。     

类别指称对象提取过程的发展研究

本研究选取初中二年级、高中二年级和大学二年级学生为被试,探讨了青少年对含有类别指称对象语篇心理加工过程。实验1采用命名法,实验2采用眼动记录法。结果发现,随着年级的升高,被试在单位时间内获得的信息逐渐增多,阅读能力不断提高,对类别指称概念的理解能力也不断提高;各年级被试表现出对类别指称对象激活的增强;大学生组被试还表现出对非指称对象激活的抑制;激活是立即发生的认知过程;抑制则是延缓发生的认知过程,且是一种策略性的控制加工过程。     

When does a referent public problem affect financial and political support for public action?

In three studies we examined the willingness to support action to remedy a public problem. In Study 1 and Study 2, people were asked whether they would financially contribute to solution of a public problem. In Study 3, people were asked whether they would sign a petition to support a public action. The aim was to test whether the willingness to support solution of a public problem is affected by the type of problem that is used as the referent. We hypothesized that the willingness to support a public action is lower when evaluated in the context of a high‐ as opposed to a low‐importance referent problem (importance contrast effect). We also hypothesized that the importance contrast effect is tied to the perceived relatedness between the target and referent problems. The importance contrast effect should be found only when the two problems relate to different category domains. The findings bear out this prediction. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

公平感社会比较的参照对象选择研究述评

员工的公平感取决于社会比较的参照对象, 分析参照对象选择的规律是理解公平感形成机制的核心问题。首先对公平感社会比较参照对象的种类和特征、参照对象选择的稳定性等进行了介绍, 然后分析了影响参照对象选择的动机、个人、环境和认知因素, 最后重点分析了当前研究中存在的问题, 比如采用问卷无法揭示员工参照对象选择真实的心理过程, 并且提出在以后的研究中采用质的研究方法, 探讨中国组织员工群体化参照对象等新思路。     

指代者对其先行词可提取性的影响

三个实验,考察了在理解含有指代法表述的句子过程中,指代者对其先行词(即所指者)的可提取性的影响及其与先述参与者可提取性上的优势之间的关系。结果表明：(1)指代者对所指者的激活有促进作用,对非所指者有一定的抑制作用,从而提高了所指者的可提取性;(2)指代者对所指者和非所指者的这种作用有一定的时间进程;(3)指代者对所指者产生作用的时间进程随指代法表述的特性而变化;(4)句子先述参与者在可提取性上的优势是一种较普遍的认知现象。它与指代法表述中所指者的易提取性现象是一种动态的关系,指代法表述或者增强先述参与者可提取性的优势,或者会消除这种优势。     

Pointing with the left and right hands in congenitally blind children

Congenitally blind and blindfolded sighted children at ages of 6, 8, 10 and 12 years performed a pointing task with their left and right index fingers at an array of three targets on a touch screen to immediate (0 s) and delayed (4 s) instructions. Accuracy was greater for immediate than delayed pointing and there was an effect of delay for the orientation of the main axis of the pointing distribution in both groups, indicating distinct spatial representations with development such as ego- and allocentric frames of reference, respectively. The pointing responses of the blind covered less surface area indicating better overall accuracy as compared to the sighted blindfolded. The hands differed for four of the six precision and accuracy parameters. The right hand performed better and seemed relatively contextually oriented, whereas the responses of the left hand were closer to the body and egocentrically oriented. The elongation of the scatter of the pointing responses was greater for the boys and more allocentrically oriented, indicating gender differences in spatial representation. The study provides a first evidence of ego- and allocentric spatial frames of reference in congenitally blind children and an ability to point at targets with the left and right hands in the total absence of vision.     

解决标准集未知题的易错性成因

解决标准集未知题容易出错,目前人们主要从关系换位和关键词策略两个角度予以解释。该研究提出概念驱动假设并用4个实验加以检验。主要实验结果如下：学生编写出的问题主要是比较集未知题;解决标准集未知题和比较集未知题的两种先后顺序产生了不尽相同的干扰模式;数据加工水平影响概念驱动作用。在文章最后讨论了该研究对教学工作的含义。     

Everybody Will Win,and All Must Be Hired: Comparing Additivity Neglect with the Nonselective Superiority Bias

Two streams of research looking at referent‐dependent judgments from slightly different angles are subadditivity research and research on the nonselective superiority bias. Both biases violate basic formal constraints: the probabilities of a set of exclusive events cannot add up to more than 100%, and a set of attractive candidates cannot all be rated as superior to the group mean. We examine in three experiments how these two biases are related, by asking the same participants to perform both kinds of tasks on the same material. Both biases appear to be widespread, even for sets where all alternatives are presented together, but they differ in the way they are affected by response format and experimental setup. Thus, presenting participants with an unbiased set of ratings will reduce but not normalize their probability estimates of the same alternatives; while presenting them with an unbiased (additive) set of probabilities will make most alternatives appear inferior to the group mean, inverting the superiority bias. Self‐reports reveal that additivity neglect and the nonselective superiority bias can be based on two main response‐strategies: (i) considering each alternative independently or (ii) comparing alternatives, while neglecting their complementarity. In both cases, assessments will be the outcome of a compromise between the perceived “absolute” merits of each alternative, its standing relative to referents, and properties of the response scale. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.