Efficacy,Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

A growing body of research demonstrates that believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts. Despite this potentially critical role of efficacy beliefs, measures and their use vary wildly in climate change risk perception and communication research, making it hard to compare and learn from efficacy studies. To address this problem and advance our understanding of efficacy beliefs, this article makes three contributions. First, we present a theoretically motivated approach to measuring climate change mitigation efficacy, in light of diverse proposed, perceived, and previously researched strategies. Second, we test this in two national survey samples (Amazon's Mechanical Turk N = 405, GfK Knowledge Panel N = 1,820), demonstrating largely coherent beliefs by level of action and discrimination between types of efficacy. Four additive efficacy scales emerge: personal self‐efficacy, personal response efficacy, government and collective self‐efficacy, and government and collective response efficacy. Third, we employ the resulting efficacy scales in mediation models to test how well efficacy beliefs predict climate change policy support, controlling for specific knowledge, risk perceptions, and ideology, and allowing for mediation by concern. Concern fully mediates the relatively strong effects of perceived risk on policy support, but only partly mediates efficacy beliefs. Stronger government and collective response efficacy beliefs and personal self‐efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.     

新媒体影响力对雾霾风险感知的作用机制

基于“2017年中国城市化与新移民调查”随机调查数据，通过已有文献构建新媒体影响力和雾霾风险感知指标，采用中介效应模型验证并探索新媒体影响力对雾霾风险感知的影响及其作用机制。研究发现:提高新媒体影响力，能有效降低雾霾风险感知，而政府环保评价起着显著的中介效应的作用；并且新媒体影响力可划分为官方媒体影响力和非官方媒体影响力；官方媒体影响力不仅直接影响雾霾风险感知，而且通过政府环保评价间接对其产生影响；而非官方媒体影响力仅通过政府环保评价对雾霾风险感知产生间接影响。因此，媒体融合时代下，提升公众对官方媒体使用频率，拓宽官方媒体信息发布喋道，完善公开透明的信任机制，同时加强对非官方媒体的信息监督和信息反馈机制，完善政府风险沟通机制，对现阶段中国环境风险的源头治理具有现实意义。     

Security Investment in Contagious Networks

Security of the systems is normally interdependent in such a way that security risks of one part affect other parts and threats spread through the vulnerable links in the network. So, the risks of the systems can be mitigated through investments in the security of interconnecting links. This article takes an innovative look at the problem of security investment of nodes on their vulnerable links in a given contagious network as a game‐theoretic model that can be applied to a variety of applications including information systems. In the proposed game model, each node computes its corresponding risk based on the value of its assets, vulnerabilities, and threats to determine the optimum level of security investments on its external links respecting its limited budget. Furthermore, direct and indirect nonlinear influences of a node's security investment on the risks of other nodes are considered. The existence and uniqueness of the game's Nash equilibrium in the proposed game are also proved. Further analysis of the model in a practical case revealed that taking advantage of the investment effects of other players, perfectly rational players (i.e., those who use the utility function of the proposed game model) make more cost‐effective decisions than selfish nonrational or semirational players.     

微信时代风险信息的传播与感知——以山东“问题”疫苗事件为例

目前,以手机终端为依托的微信传播技术不仅给社会传播方式带来了前所未有的改变,而且给社会风险信息的传播获取以及公众对风险的感知与判断,甚至政府的风险决策与治理方式都带来了巨大的挑战.鉴于此,选取了比较典型的案例——山东“问题”疫苗事件作为探讨对象,结合相应的统计资料,深入分析了在此案例中微信传播呈现出的显著特征,即传播内容庞杂未见明显的“沉默螺旋”的显现,传播态度多元化但偏于激动,传播迅速集中但议题缺乏持续的关注.研究认为,正由于这样的传播特征加之疫苗风险本身的特征与个体的偏颇性解读,使公众对“问题”疫苗事件产生了强烈的风险感知,并在一定程度上造成了疫苗的污名化结果.因此建议微信时代一定要警惕媒介化的风险,风险沟通要在同理心的基础上进行,要引导公众对风险议题进行持续理性的关注等.     

产需不确定下基于零售商风险规避的三级供应链组合契约模型

针对产需不确定下单一供应商、制造商和风险规避的零售商组成的三级供应链系统，建立了分散和集中情况下的最优决策模型。通过设计风险共担和GL组合契约实现了三级供应链的协调。讨论了风险规避零售商的最优订购决策，分析了风险规避对供应链期望效益的影响。比较了风险规避和风险中性两种情况下零售商的最优决策。探讨了组合契约的协调问题及契约参数之间的关系。研究表明供应链的期望利润随着产需不确定的增加而减少，风险规避下零售商的期望利润低于风险中性时的期望利润，零售商的期望利润随着风险规避程度的加大而减少，零售商最优订购量随风险规避程度的增加而变化。最后数值算例验证了模型和契约协调的有效性。     

政治关联如何影响社会组织有效性？——组织自主性的中介作用和制度支持的调节作用

社会组织领域的政治关联现象日益显著，但政治关联究竟如何影响社会组织有效性，其隐藏的作用机制又是什么？这是学术界尚未明晰的重要课题。针对254家社会组织的问卷调查发现，社会组织政治关联会正向影响组织有效性，这一关系受到组织自主性的中介作用影响。更进一步的研究显示，制度支持能调节上述中介关系。具体而言，当制度支持水平较高时，这一效应将会增强；当制度支持水平较低时，政治关联通过组织自主性间接影响组织有效性的效应就会减弱。这一发现，一方面增进了我们对社会组织政治关联的理解，另一方面也为提升社会组织有效性的理论和实践提供了重要启示。     

“Who generates this city”? Socialist strategy in contemporary London

This essay, based on a “militant ethnography” of the attempts of the small radical grassroots activist group, Our London (a pseudonym), to mobilize a collective oppositional politics through activities around an election campaign, engages critically with E. Laclau and C. Mouffe's arguments on discourse and collectivity in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985). I argue, on the basis of my findings, that while their model does provide insights that help describe the process of building collectivity from among disparate perspectives and identities, we need to go beyond a focus on discourse alone and consider the ways politics is shaped by material contexts. This is necessary if we are to understand the continued appeal of class politics as well as the difficulties in mobilizing collectivity in highly unequal and fragmented cities. From an activist perspective, the essay also highlights how developing a conception of collective interests and a critique of overarching systems of exploitation can be important in building political unity.     

浅析加强和改进高校的思想政治教育工作

高校的思想政治教育工作在我国的现代化建设和发展中占有着举足轻重的作用,但高校思想政治工作在实际的操作中依然存在着不容忽视的问题。文章试从高校思想政治教育工作的必要性、紧迫性两方面出发,对加强高校思想政治工作进行探索,进而提出一些改进措施,以期进一步强化高校思想政治教育工作。     

Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy

To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists'perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences ( p 0.05)in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a)perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b)perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d)prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that–independently of field of research–perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.     

Integrating Family Resilience and Family Stress Theory

The construct, family resilience, has been defined and applied very differently by those who are primarily clinical practitioners and those who are primarily researchers in the family field. In thisarticle, the family resilience perspective is integrated with conceptual definitions from family stress theory using the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) Model in an effort to clarify distinctions between family resiliency as capacity and family resilience as a process. The family resilience process is discussed in terms of (a) the meaning of significant risk exposure (vs. the normal challenges of family life) and (b) the importance of making conceptual and operational distinctions between family system outcomes and family protective processes. Recommendations for future family resilience research are discussed.