Subjects: Statistics >> Social Statistics submitted time 2024-05-18 Cooperative journals: 《中国科学院院刊》
Abstract： The overall strategy of the “four major sectors”, the regional major strategies and the major functional oriented zoning strategy have strongly supported the regional coordinated development in China. However, it also brings the risk of exacerbating the imbalance and incoordination of regional development due to strategic differences and segmentation. Based on an analysis of the trends in regional coordinated development in China, this study puts forward the layout of China’s comprehensive function regions, which divides the mainland of China into 10 regions: the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Yangtze River Delta region, the middle reaches of Yangtze River basin, the upper reaches of Yangtze River basin, the Southern coastal region, the lower reaches of Yellow River basin, the Ji shaped bay area of the Yellow River basin, the Northeast region, the arid region of Northwest China, and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, with the functional orientation and recent key tasks of different regions addressed. The layout of comprehensive function regions highlights the full coverage of territorial space, and the guidance of core area and major strategies. Moreover, it is conducive to promoting the convergence and integration of the overall strategy of the “four major sectors”, the regional major strategies, and the major functional oriented zoning strategy.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： In many cases, people intend to offer help but unfortunately cause more troubles to help recipients. After doing so, helpers often expect negative evaluations from help recipients. However, is this prediction accurate? The present research proposes a misprediction: helpers will overestimate the negative impacts (underestimate the positive impacts) of their behaviors on help recipients when they try to help but cause more troubles. The reason for this misprediction is that in contrast to helpers’ predictions about help recipients, help recipients pay more attention to helpers’ warmth and less attention to helpers’ competence. We conducted six studies (N = 1, 763) to test the proposed misprediction and test its underlying mechanism. Study 1 adopted a 2 (outcome: success or failure) × 2 (role: helper or help recipient) between-subjects design. Helpers predicted help recipients’ reactions (gratefulness, satisfaction, the likelihood to seek help again, the likelihood to recommend helpers to others), whereas help recipients rated their own reactions. The results showed a misprediction such that helpers exaggerated the negative reactions of help recipients. In addition, the misprediction was specific to failure. In the success condition, helpers made accurate predictions about help recipients’ reactions. These results also ruled out alternative explanations of the spotlight effect and social desirability bias. Studies 2a and 2b adopted an identical design to that in Study 1 and replicated the results in Study 1 in a different scenario by bounded and unbounded scales. In addition, we found the existence of the misprediction made by helpers in both proactive and reactive helping. Study 3 replicated the results by using indicators involving money. In Study 4, with an identical design to that in Study 1, helpers made predictions about how help recipients rated their warmth and competence, whereas help recipients rated helpers’ warmth and competence. Afterwards, helpers predicted help recipients’ reactions, whereas help recipients rated their own reactions. The results showed that helpers underestimated help recipients’ ratings of warmth and competence in the failure condition and that this underestimation accounted for the overestimation of help recipients’ negative reactions. In Study 5, we recorded participants’ real-time thoughts during their prediction or rating process. We found that helpers considered their competence (warmth) earlier and more (later and less) than help recipients, indicating that helpers focused more on their competence and less on their warmth when making predictions about help recipients than help recipients did. The query order and content accounted for the overestimation of help recipients’ negative reactions in the failure condition. We show that people who try to help others but eventually cause more troubles mispredict the reactions of help recipients. Helpers overestimate the negative consequences (underestimate the positive consequences) of their behaviors to help recipients. We also reveal the underlying mechanism of this misprediction that helps recipients pay more attention to helpers’ warmth and less attention to helpers’ competence compared to helpers’ predictions about help recipients. Understanding this misprediction helps alleviate the concerns of helpers when they are intended to offer help but actually do harm to others and helps promote subsequent helping behaviors.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2020-11-14
Abstract： In many cases, people intend to offer help but unfortunately cause more troubles to help recipients. After doing so, helpers often expect negative evaluations from help recipients. However, is this prediction accurate? The present research proposes a misprediction: helpers will overestimate the negative impacts (underestimate the positive impacts) of their behaviors on help recipients when they try to help but cause more troubles. The reason for this misprediction is that in contrast to helpers’ predictions about help recipients, help recipients pay more attention to helpers’ warmth and less attention to helpers’ competence. We conducted six studies (N = 1,763) to test the proposed misprediction and test its underlying mechanism. Study 1 adopted a 2 (outcome: success or failure) × 2 (role: helper or help recipient) between-subjects design. Helpers predicted help recipients’ reactions (gratefulness, satisfaction, the likelihood to seek help again, the likelihood to recommend helpers to others), whereas help recipients rated their own reactions. The results showed a misprediction such that helpers exaggerated the negative reactions of help recipients. In addition, the misprediction was specific to failure. In the success condition, helpers made accurate predictions about help recipients’ reactions. These results also ruled out alternative explanations of the spotlight effect and social desirability bias. Studies 2a and 2b adopted an identical design to that in Study 1 and replicated the results in Study 1 in a different scenario by bounded and unbounded scales. In addition, we found the existence of the misprediction made by helpers in both proactive and reactive helping. Study 3 replicated the results by using indicators involving money. In Study 4, with an identical design to that in Study 1, helpers made predictions about how help recipients rated their warmth and competence, whereas help recipients rated helpers’ warmth and competence. Afterwards, helpers predicted help recipients’ reactions, whereas help recipients rated their own reactions. The results showed that helpers underestimated help recipients’ ratings of warmth and competence in the failure condition and that this underestimation accounted for the overestimation of help recipients’ negative reactions. In Study 5, we recorded participants’ real-time thoughts during their prediction or rating process. We found that helpers considered their competence (warmth) earlier and more (later and less) than help recipients, indicating that helpers focused more on their competence and less on their warmth when making predictions about help recipients than help recipients did. The query order and content accounted for the overestimation of help recipients’ negative reactions in the failure condition. We show that people who try to help others but eventually cause more troubles mispredict the reactions of help recipients. Helpers overestimate the negative consequences (underestimate the positive consequences) of their behaviors to help recipients. We also reveal the underlying mechanism of this misprediction that helps recipients pay more attention to helpers’ warmth and less attention to helpers’ competence compared to helpers’ predictions about help recipients. Understanding this misprediction helps alleviate the concerns of helpers when they are intended to offer help but actually do harm to others and helps promote subsequent helping behaviors.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2019-02-20
Abstract： In the age of mobile Internet, it is common for people to focus on their mobile phones while neglecting other people or events around them in social situations. This phenomenon refers to phubbing. In the current paper, we systematically reviewed relevant studies, and summarized the antecedents, consequences, and functioning mechanisms of phubbing. Building on them, we proposed several directions for future research, including using a person-centered approach to explore how phubbing develops, examining the effects of phubbing from the boundary creation perspective, demonstrating the mutual influence of phubbing and interpersonal relationship quality, clarifying the impact of phubbing on the phubbers, and exploring the functioning mechanisms based on the perspective of non-interpersonal perception. " "
Subjects: Dynamic and Electric Engineering >> Engineering Thermophysics submitted time 2017-11-23 Cooperative journals: 《工程热物理学报》
Abstract：本文利用CFD数值模拟软件对当量直径为200 μm的不同孔隙率的叉排圆形微针肋热沉的流动和传热特性进行了数值模拟。模拟结果表明，随着雷诺数的增加，针肋尾部出现不同形态的涡。不同孔隙率的通道中，由于后排针肋的影响，针肋尾迹区的涡的形态、大小出现不同。对不同孔隙率的微针肋热沉，热流密度的变化对热沉的努赛尔数Nu的影响不同，孔隙率较小时热流密度对热沉的努赛尔数Nu影响不大，孔隙率较大时热流密度升高，热沉的努赛尔数Nu升高。
Subjects: Dynamic and Electric Engineering >> Engineering Thermophysics submitted time 2017-10-31 Cooperative journals: 《工程热物理学报》
Abstract：本文利用CFD数值模拟软件对当量直径为200 μm的不同孔隙率的叉排圆形微针肋热沉的流动和传热特性进行了数值模拟。模拟结果表明，随着雷诺数的增加，针肋尾部出现不同形态的涡。不同孔隙率的通道中，由于后排针肋的影响，针肋尾迹区的涡的形态、大小出现不同。对不同孔隙率的微针肋热沉，热流密度的变化对热沉的努赛尔数Nu的影响不同，孔隙率较小时热流密度对热沉的努赛尔数Nu影响不大，孔隙率较大时热流密度升高，热沉的努赛尔数Nu升高。
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment