删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

交流语言认知理论 *

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01
张恒超()
天津商业大学法学院心理学系, 天津 300134
收稿日期:2017-10-06出版日期:2018-06-10发布日期:2018-04-28
通讯作者:张恒超E-mail:zhhengch@126.com

基金资助:* 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(16YJC190029)

Communicative language cognition theory

ZHANG Hengchao()
Department of Psychology, School of Law, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
Received:2017-10-06Online:2018-06-10Published:2018-04-28
Contact:ZHANG Hengchao E-mail:zhhengch@126.com






摘要/Abstract


摘要： 交流语言认知是交流认知的典型代表, 语言是交流互动中的典型媒介。交流语言具有互动性、合作性、集体性奖赏和个人责任等特征, 这决定了交流语言认知过程特征的复杂性、灵活性和现实功用性。文章重点归纳和述评：交流语言加工的同伴特定性理论、时间过程理论、意识性理论。未来研究应进一步考虑：交流语言认知实验研究情境的自然性, 交流语言实验设计角度和目的的包容性, 交流语言认知和非语言认知间的关系特征等。


[1] 张恒超 . ( 2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29( 5), 552-560.
[2] 张恒超 . ( 2017 a). 共享因素对参照性交流双方学习的影响. 心理学报, 49( 2), 197-205.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00197URL
[3] 张恒超 . ( 2017 b). 参照性交流双方学习和语言注意特征的比较. 心理研究, 10( 1), 24-30.
[4] 张恒超 . ( 2017 c). 共享方式对参照性交流学习过程和选择性注意的影响. 心理学探新, 37( 4), 307-312.
[5] 张恒超 . ( 2017 d). 参照性交流学习中语言内容和选择性注意的变化特点. 心理技术与应用, 5( 7), 385-393.
doi: 10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2017.07.001URL
[6] 张恒超 . ( 2018). 交流语言认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26( 2), 270-282.
[7] Arnold J. E., Kahn J. M., & Pancani G. C . ( 2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19( 3), 505-512.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-yURLpmid: 22419403
[8] Arnold J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Altmann R. J., & Fagnano M . ( 2004). The old and thee, uh, new. Psychological Science, 15, 578-582.
doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.xURL
[9] Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46( 2), 391-418.
doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2815URL
[10] Bell A., Brenier J. M., Gregory M., Girand C., & Jurafsky D . ( 2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60( 1), 92-111.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003URL
[11] Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343-355.
doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.017URLpmid: 25432623
[12] Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., Pearson J., McLean J. F., & Brown A . ( 2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41-57.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011URLpmid: 21723549
[13] Brennan S. E., Chen X., Dickinson C. A., Neider M. B., & Zelinsky G. J . ( 2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106( 3), 1465-1477.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012URLpmid: 17617394
[14] Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H . ( 1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 6), 1482-1493.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482URL
[15] Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E . ( 2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291.
doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.xURLpmid: 25164933
[16] Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Language Emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3( 1), 363-388.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040743URL
[17] Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61( 2), 171-190.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003URLpmid: 20161117
[18] Buz E., Tanenhaus M. K., & Jaeger T. F . ( 2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68-86.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009URLpmid: 4927008
[19] Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B . ( 1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58( 2), 332-373.
doi: 10.2307/414102URL
[20] Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A . ( 2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50( 1), 62-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004URL
[21] Clark H. H. , & Marshall, C. R.( 1981) . Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, I. A. Sag, & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (10- 63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22] Davies, C. N . ( 2011). Over-informativeness in referential communication (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Cambridge.
[23] De Marco D., De Stefani E., & Gentilucci M . ( 2015). Gesture and word analysis: the same or different processes?. NeuroImage, 117, 375-385.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.080URLpmid: 26044859
[24] De Ruiter J. P., Bangerter A., & Dings P . ( 2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4( 2), 232-248.
doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01183.xURLpmid: 22389109
[25] Duff M. C., Hengst J., Tranel D., & Cohen N. J . ( 2006). Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nature Neuroscience, 9( 1), 140-146.
doi: 10.1038/nn1601URLpmid: 16341214
[26] Edelman, S. (2017). Language and other complex behaviors: Unifying characteristics, computational models, neural mechanisms. Language Sciences, 62, 91-123.
doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.003URL
[27] Epley N., Keysar B., van Boven L., & Gilovich T . ( 2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327URL
[28] Fay N., Garrod S., & Carletta J . ( 2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11, 481-486.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00292URL
[29] Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S . ( 2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730URLpmid: 10888342
[30] Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N . ( 2013). Collaborating in spatial tasks: How partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions. Cognitive Processing, 14( 2), 193-195.
doi: 10.1007/s10339-013-0541-9URLpmid: 23413001
[31] Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002URL
[32] Galati A., Michael C., Mello C., Greenauer N. M., & Avraamides M. N . ( 2013). The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 140-159.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.001URL
[33] Graham S. A., Sedivy J., & Khu M . ( 2014). That’s not what you said earlier: Preschoolers expect partners to be referentially consistent. Journal of Child Language, 41, 34-50.
doi: 10.1017/S0305000912000530URLpmid: 23398907
[34] Graziano, M., & Gullberg, M. (2013). Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. In Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting (TiGeR) 2013. Tilburg University.
[35] Green T., Wilhelmsen T., Wilmots E., Dodd B., & Quinn S . ( 2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206-213.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.066URL
[36] Greenaway K. H., Wright R. G., Willingham J., Reynolds K. J., & Haslam S. A . ( 2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41( 2), 171-182.
doi: 10.1177/0146167214559709URLpmid: 25416042
[37] Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
[38] Haywood S. L., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . ( 2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science, 16, 362-366.
doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01541.xURLpmid: 15869694
[39] Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001URL
[40] Horton, W. S . ( 2007). The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22( 7), 1114-1139.
doi: 10.1080/01690960701402933URLpmid: 2440709
[41] Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2002). Speaker’s experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589-606.
doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0URL
[42] Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1-35.
doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1URL
[43] Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1URLpmid: 8857472
[44] Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36( 1), 143-159.
doi: 10.2478/slgr-2014-0007URL
[45] Keysar B., Barr D. J., Balin J. A., & Brauner J. S . ( 2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11( 1), 32-38.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00211URLpmid: 11228840
[46] Keysar B., Barr D. J., & Horton W. S . ( 1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7( 2), 46-49.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613URL
[47] Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from- preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 436-455.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.002URL
[48] Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2015) Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta- analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1-19.
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008URL
[49] Kronmüller E., Noveck I., Rivera N., Jaume-Guazzini F., & Barr D . ( 2017). The positive side of a negative reference: The delay between linguistic processing and common ground. Royal Society Open Science, 4( 2), 160827.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.160827URLpmid: 28386440
[50] Levinson, S. C . ( 2016). Turn-taking in human communication-origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20( 1), 6-14.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010URLpmid: 26651245
[51] Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S . ( 1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127( 4), 331-354.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.331URLpmid: 9857492
[52] Matovic D., Koch A. S., & Forgas J. P . ( 2014). Can negative mood improve language understanding? Affective influences on the ability to detect ambiguous communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 44-49.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.12.003URL
[53] Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 201-213.
doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7URL
[54] Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E . ( 2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker’s intentions: Cues to the speaker’s attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.003URLpmid: 24534295
[55] Novak-Marcincin J., Nicolescu A., & Teodorescu M . ( 2015). Neutrosophic circuits of communication: A review. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 43, 174-186.
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.23060URL
[56] Nückles M., Wittwer J., & Renkl A . ( 2005). Information about a layperson’s knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 219-236.
doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.219URLpmid: 16393032
[57] O’Carroll S., Nicoladis E., & Smithson L . ( 2015). The effect of extroversion on communication: Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation. Speech Communication, 69, 1-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2015.01.005URL
[58] Perniss P., ?zyürek A., & Morgan G . ( 2015). The Influence of the visual modality on language structure and conventionalization: Insights from sign language and gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7( 1), 2-11.
doi: 10.1111/tops.12127URLpmid: 25565249
[59] Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056URLpmid: 15595235
[60] Regier T., Kemp C., & Kay P . ( 2015). Word meanings across languages support efficient communication. In The handbook of language emergence( pp. 237-263). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
doi: 10.1002/9781118346136.ch11URL
[61] Roberts G., Langstein B., & Galantucci B . ( 2016). ( In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language & Communication, 47, 15-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.11.001URL
[62] Rogers S. L., Fay N., & Maybery M . ( 2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PLoS One, 8( 2), e57211.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057211URLpmid: 3578794
[63] Tolins J., Zeamer C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2017). Overhearing dialogues and monologues: How does entrainment lead to more comprehensible referring expressions?. Discourse Processes, 1-21, doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516.
doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516URL
[64] Vanlangendonck F., Willems R., Menenti L., & Hagoort P . ( 2013). The role of common ground in audience design: Beyond an all or nothing story. In The workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference the (PRE-CogSci 2013).
[65] Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G . ( 2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25( 7-9), 905-945.
doi: 10.1080/01690961003589492URL
[66] Yoon S. O., Koh S., & Brown-Schmidt S . ( 2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 699-707.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0262-6URLpmid: 22572985
[67] Yu C., Schermerhorn P., & Scheutz M . ( 2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 1(2), Article No.13.
doi: 10.1145/2070719.2070726URL




[1]隋雪, 史汉文, 李雨桐. 语言加工过程中的观点采择及其认知机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 990-999.
[2]于文勃, 王璐, 程幸悦, 王天琳, 张晶晶, 梁丹丹. 语言经验对概率词切分的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 787-795.
[3]肖承丽, 隋雨檠, 肖苏衡, 周仁来. 空间交互研究新视角：多重社会因素的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 796-805.
[4]尹俊婷, 王冠, 罗俊龙. 威胁对创造力的影响：认知与情绪双加工路径[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 815-826.
[5]黄观澜, 周晓璐. 抑郁症患者的语言使用模式[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 838-848.
[6]王学思, 李静雅, 王美芳. 父母婚姻冲突对儿童发展的影响及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 875-884.
[7]赵宏明, 董燕萍. 口译员的认知转换优势[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 625-634.
[8]徐俊怡, 李中权. 基于游戏的心理测评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 394-403.
[9]赵小红, 童薇, 陈桃林, 吴冬梅, 张蕾, 陈正举, 方晓义, 龚启勇, 唐小蓉. 敬畏的心理模型及其认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 520-530.
[10]岳童, 黄希庭, 傅安国. 人们何以能够“舍生取义”?基于保护性价值观认知神经机制的解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 540-548.
[11]王博韬, 魏萍. 道德情绪:探寻道德与创造力关系的新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 268-275.
[12]赵锴, 向姝婷. 如何解决团队创新悖论?基于成员认知风格“组型”与“构型”视角的探究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 1-18.
[13]郭滢, 龚先旻, 王大华. 错误记忆产生的认知与神经机制：信息加工视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 79-92.
[14]赵鑫, 郑巧萍. 童年贫困与晚年认知老化：加速还是延缓?[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 160-166.
[15]钱柳, 汝涛涛, 罗雪, 牛佳兴, 马永骏, 周国富. 睡眠限制对认知功能的影响及其潜在作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1493-1507.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4340
相关话题/心理 科学 语言 交流 过程
  • 领限时大额优惠券,享本站正版考研考试资料!
    大额优惠券
    优惠券领取后72小时内有效，10万种最新考研考试考证类电子打印资料任你选。涵盖全国500余所院校考研专业课、200多种职业资格考试、1100多种经典教材，产品类型包含电子书、题库、全套资料以及视频，无论您是考研复习、考证刷题，还是考前冲刺等，不同类型的产品可满足您学习上的不同需求。 ...
    考试优惠券 本站小编 Free壹佰分学习网 2022-09-19
  • 基本心理需要及其满足 *
    吴才智(),荣硕,朱芳婷,谌燕,郭永玉青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室,华中师范大学心理学院,人的发展与心理健康湖北省重点实验室,武汉430079收稿日期:2017-10-17出版日期:2018-06-10发布日期:2018-04-28通讯作者:吴才智E-mail:dsxq888@126.com ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 光照对社会心理和行为的影响 *
    陈庆伟1,2,汝涛涛2(),周菊燕1,李静华1,熊晓1,李笑然4,周国富2,3,4()1华南师范大学心理学院,光与身心健康研究中心,广州5106312华南师范大学,国家绿色光电子国际联合研究中心,广州5100063华南师范大学,华南先进光电子研究院,广东省光信息材料与技术重点实验室&彩色动态电子纸显 ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 大数据时代心理学文本分析技术 ——“主题模型”的应用
    曹奔1;夏勉1;任志洪2,3;林秀彬1;徐升1;赖丽足1;王琪1;江光荣1(1华中师范大学心理学院暨湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室,青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室,武汉430079)(2福州大学应用心理学系,福州350108)(3DepartmentofCounselingPsycholo ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 交流手势的认知特征
    张恒超(天津商业大学法学院心理学系,天津300134)出版日期:2018-05-15发布日期:2018-03-30通讯作者:张恒超,E-mail:zhhengch@126.comE-mail:E-mail:zhhengch@126.com基金资助:教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(16YJC190 ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 定制化信息对家庭节能行为决策过程影响的追踪研究
    王建明1;孙彦2(1浙江财经大学工商管理学院,杭州310018)(2中国科学院行为科学重点实验室,中国科学院心理研究所,北京100101)收稿日期:2017-04-17出版日期:2018-04-15发布日期:2018-02-27通讯作者:王建明,E-mail:sjwjm@qq.comE-mail:E ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 心理学视角下的人生目标
    王彤;黄希庭(西南大学心理学部,重庆400715)收稿日期:2017-07-24出版日期:2018-04-15发布日期:2018-02-28通讯作者:黄希庭,E-mail:xthuang@swu.edu.cnE-mail:E-mail:xthuang@swu.edu.cn基金资助:重庆市人文社会科学 ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 母爱行为对子代心理及行为的影响： 基于动物模型的结果与思考
    李钻;陈伟海(认知与人格教育部重点实验室(西南大学);西南大学心理学部,重庆400715)收稿日期:2017-06-13出版日期:2018-03-15发布日期:2018-01-31通讯作者:陈伟海,E-mail:whchen@swu.edu.cnE-mail:E-mail:whchen@swu.ed ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 心理解剖及其在自杀研究中的应用
    吴才智;谌燕;孙启武;于丽霞;江光荣(青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室,华中师范大学心理学院,湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室,武汉430079)收稿日期:2017-06-20出版日期:2018-03-15发布日期:2018-01-31通讯作者:孙启武,E-mail:sunqiwu@mail. ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 可操作物体识别过程中的两种操作动作表征
    於文苑;刘烨;傅小兰(中国科学院心理研究所,脑与认知科学国家重点实验室,北京100101)(中国科学院大学心理学系,北京100049)收稿日期:2017-04-12出版日期:2018-02-15发布日期:2017-12-26通讯作者:刘烨,E-mail:liuye@psych.ac.cn基金资助:中 ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 阅读任务中无关言语效应的作用机制： 干扰基于内容还是过程？
    孟珠;闫国利(天津师范大学心理与行为研究院,天津300074)收稿日期:2017-01-16出版日期:2018-02-15发布日期:2017-12-26通讯作者:闫国利,E-mail:psyygl@163.com基金资助:教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(15JJD190003)和天津师范大学 ...
    中科院心理研究所 本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01

Free考研考试FreeKaoYan.Com
欢迎来到Free考研考试，"为实现人生的Free而奋斗"

© 2020 FreeKaoYan! . All rights reserved.