共找到 20 条结果
Much attention has been focused in recent years on the ethical acceptability of physicians receiving gifts from drug companies. Professional guidelines recognize industry gifts as a conflict of interest and establish thresholds prohibiting the exchange of large gifts while expressly allowing for the exchange of small gifts such as pens, note pads, and coffee. Considerable evidence from the social sciences suggests that gifts of negligible value can influence the behavior of the recipient in ways the recipient does not always realize. Policies and guidelines that rely on arbitrary value limits for gift-giving or receipt should be reevaluated.
Edible and seminal gifts that male arthropods transfer to their mates range from important material donations to items that provide little direct benefit. Recent reviews and research have emphasized the negative effect of gifts on female fitness, suggesting that male donations reduce the female's remating rate below her optimum or even that nuptial feeding is a net detriment to her fitness. However, comparative, experimental, and natural history evidence reveal that most edible gifts of prey or glandular products provide direct benefits to females. Gifts clearly supply nutrients when females compete for them or increase mating rates when food from other sources is limited. I point out the difficulties in determining that female remating rates are suboptimal and suggest several alternative hypotheses for the apparently low female mating rates in some gift-giving species. With regard to seminal contributions (absorbed from the ejaculate), I discuss how to separate hormonal (potentially manipulative) and material-benefit effects of male secretions on females.
C A Gregory's Gifts and Commodities is one of the undisputed classics of economic anthropology. On its publication in 1982, it spurred intense, ongoing debates about gifts and gifting, value, exchange, and the place of political economy in anthropology. Gifts and Commodities is, at once, a critique of neoclassical economics and development theory, a critical history of colonial Papua New Guinea, and a comparative ethnography of exchange in Melanesian societies. This new edition includes a new foreword by anthropologist Marilyn Strathern that discusses the ongoing response to the book and the debates it has engendered, debates that have only become more salient in our ever-more-neoliberal and ever-more-globalized era.
This article reports the results of a study meant to portray a detailed picture of self-gift experiences in four contexts, focusing notably on reward and therapeutic self-gifts. Extending prior conceptual discussions, the findings suggest that self-gifts are a form of personally symbolic self-communication through special indulgences that tend to be premeditated and highly context bound. Discussion centers on theoretical implications and future directions for self-gift research. Overall, self-gifts represent a complex class of personal acquisitions that offer intriguing insights on self-directed consumer behavior.
Gift-giving has often puzzled economists, especially because efficient grifts-like cash or giving exactly what a person asks for-seem crass or inappropriate. It is shown in a formal game-theoretic model that gifts serve as "signals" of a person's intentions about future investment in a relationship, and inefficient gifts can be beter signals. Other explanations for the inefficiency of gift giving are advanced, and some stylized facts about gift-giving practices are described (many of which are consistent with the signaling view of gifts).
Abstract The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) presents the talent development process (P) as the transformation of outstanding natural abilities, or gifts (G), into outstanding systematically developed skills which define expertise, or talent (T) 3 in a particular occupational field. This developmental sequence constitutes the heart of the DMGT. Three types of catalysts help or hinder that process: (a) interpersonal (I) catalysts, like personal traits and self‐management processes; (b) environmental (E) catalysts, like socio‐demographic factors, psychological influences (e.g., from parents, teachers, or peers), or special talent development facilities and programs; and (c) chance (C). The DMGT includes a 5‐level metric‐based (MB) system to operationalize the prevalence of gifted or talented individuals, with a basic ‘top 10 per cent’ threshold for mild giftedness or talent, through successive 10 per cent cuts for moderate, high, exceptional and extreme levels. Complex interactions between the six components are surveyed. The text ends with a proposed answer to a fundamental question: ‘What factor(s) make(s) a difference, on average, between those who emerge among the talented and those who remain average?’ Notes The present article is an adaptation of two recent presentations of the DMGT (see Gagné, Citation2003, Citationin press, a). I did examine closely Snow’s very unorthodox definition of aptitude (Snow & Lohman, Citation1984; Snow, Citation1992). It is much too complex to present here. Suffice it to say that I found too many points of disagreement to endorse that view and integrate it in the structure of the DMGT. The gifted label appears specific to the field of education; rarely does one sees the term employed by educators in arts, or by professionals in sports; there, the common expressions for giftedness are ‘talent’ or ‘natural talent’. If the DMGT were more generally endorsed outside of general education, we might see a more frequent use of the expression physical or psychomotor giftedness. Then, talent would more specifically apply to outstanding performance. When I conceived the DMGT at the turn of the 1980s, I decided to adopt the term ‘domain’ for categories of natural abilities (gifts) and the term ‘field’ for talent areas; I hoped in that way to reduce confusion when discussing these two category systems. Csikszentmihalyi (see Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, Citation1986) independently proposed a very distinct differentiation, which he described as follows: If by ‘domain’ we mean a culturally structured pattern of opportunities for action, requiring a distinctive set of sensori‐motor and cognitive skills—in short, a symbolic system such as music, math ematics, or athletics—we may designate by ‘field’ the social organization of a domain. A field includes all the statuses pertinent to the domain; it specifies the habitual patterns of behavior—or roles—expected from persons who occupy the various statuses. (pp. 278–279) That differentiation differs totally from my own. Note the perfect overlap between domains and fields; in terms of numbers and potential subcategories, both concepts would be identical, since the concept of field is just the analysis of a domain from a sociological, legal, and administrative perspective. My own definition of field does not distinguish these two perspectives. Because I analyze the phenomenon of talent development from a less macrocospic or societal outlook, and more from a psycho‐educational point of view, such a distinction is, to me, of limited usefulness. The International Labour Organization (ILO) created decades ago an International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) designed to classify as logically as possible all past, present, and future occupations worldwide. The ISCO was last revised in 1988 by the Fourteenth Conference of Labour Statisticians, and renamed ISCO‐88 (see http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/class/isco.htm; accessed 18 November 2004). It includes almost ten thousand distinct occupations grouped into a hierarchical system of ten major, 27 sub‐major, over a hundred minor and hundreds of unit categories. The ten major categories are: 1) legislators, senior officials, and managers; 2) professionals; 3) technicians and associate professionals; 4) clerks; 5) service and sales workers; 6) agricultural and fisheries workers; 7) crafts and related trades workers; 8) plant and machine operators; 9) elementary occupations; and 10) the army. Most of these occupations—except maybe those in the ninth category—offer sufficient range in the level of skills to be mastered to make possible the differentiated identification of competent versus talented individuals. Moon recently proposed a structure closely related to my self‐management sub‐component. She defines it as follows: ‘The development of personal talent involves the acquisition of a number of specific skills from the personal domain, skills such as personal decision‐making and self‐regulation. The development of these skills, in turn, is facilitated by strong executive abilities’ (2003, p. 8). That quote shows that the two major types of skills defining her personal talent strongly overlap the motivation (decision‐making) and volition (goal attainment) dimensions of my self‐management sub‐component. The adjective ‘outstanding’ was carefully chosen to approximate the level of marginality I had in mind for the basic level of giftedness and talent. The term ‘superior’ appeared too generous, whereas the term ‘exceptional’ conveys the image of a more restrictive subgroup. Of course, I totally avoid ‘extraordinary’, except to describe very high levels of natural ability or achievement; I would place that level just below ‘prodigious’. Unfortunately, many professionals in the field do not exhibit the same carefulness in their qualifications of gifted or talented behavior. Such agreement recently happened in the field of nutrition with the generalization of the Body Mass Index [weight in kilos/(height in meters)2]. Professionals in that field agreed on the following operationalizations: underweight (< 20), normal (20–25), overweight (26–29), and obese (30 +). These shared thresholds make possible geographical comparisons, as well as age‐group comparisons. Feldhusen defines giftedness as follows: ‘Our composite conception of giftedness then includes (a) general intellectual ability, (b) positive self‐concept, (c) achievement motivation, and (d) talent’ (1986, p. 112). Renzulli presents the following definition: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three clusters of human traits—these clusters being above average general and/or specific abilities, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented children are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance’ (1986, p. 73).
"The growth of technological and scientific knowledge in the past two centuries has been the overriding dynamic element in the economic and social history of the world. Its result is now often called the knowledge economy. But what are the historical origins of this revolution and what have been its mechanisms? In The Gifts of Athena, Joel Mokyr constructs an original framework to analyze the concept of "useful" knowledge. He argues that the growth explosion in the modern West in the past two centuries was driven not just by the appearance of new technological ideas but also by the improved access to these ideas in society at large - as made possible by social networks comprising universities, publishers, professional sciences, and kindred institutions
Like a thumbprint, personality type provides an instant snapshot of a person's uniqueness. Drawing on concepts originated by Carl Jung, this book distinguishes four categories of personality styles and shows how these qualities determine the way you perceive the world and come to conclusions about what you've seen. It then explains what they mean for your success in school, at a job, in a career and in your personal relationships. For more than 60 years, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tool has been the most widely used instrument in the world for determining personality type, and for more than 25 years, GIFTS DIFFERING has been the preeminent source for understanding it.
1. Introduction: the gift in anthropology and Chinese society 2. Xiajia village: a sketch of the field site 3. The world of gifts: a preliminary classification 4. The gift economy and Guanxi networks 5. The structure of Guanxi in village society 6. The principle of reciprocity and Renaqing ethics 7. Power and prestige in gift-exchange relations 8. Marriage transactions and social reformations 9. Conclusions: socialism, Guanxi, Renqing and the gift Notes Bibliography Character list Index.
Abstract. In writings on the open source software development model, it is often argued that it is successful as a result of the gift economy that embraces activities in online communities. However, the theoretical foundations for this argument are seldom discussed and empirically tested. Starting with the ‘classic’ theories of gift giving, we discuss how they need to be developed in order to explain gift‐giving practices in digital domains. In this paper, we argue that the gift economy is important, not only because it creates openness, but also because it organizes relationships between people in a certain way. Open source software development relies on gift giving as a way of getting new ideas and prototypes out into circulation. This also implies that the giver gets power from giving away. This power is used as a way of guaranteeing the quality of the code. We relate this practice to how gifts, in the form of new scientific knowledge, are given to the research community, and how this is done through peer review processes.
An elaborate and pervasive set of practices, called guanxi , underlies everyday social relationships in contemporary China. Obtaining and changing job assignments, buying certain foods and consumer items, getting into good hospitals, buying train tickets, obtaining housing, even doing business—all such tasks call for the skillful and strategic giving of gifts and cultivating of obligation, indebtedness, and reciprocity. Mayfair Mei-hui Yang's close scrutiny of this phenomenon serves as a window to view facets of a much broader and more complex cultural, historical, and political formation. Using rich and varied ethnographic examples of guanxi stemming from her fieldwork in China in the 1980s and 1990s, the author shows how this "gift economy" operates in the larger context of the socialist state redistributive economy.
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
What determines reciprocity in employment relations? We conducted a controlled field experiment to measure the extent to which monetary and nonmonetary gifts affect workers' performance. We find that nonmonetary gifts have a much stronger impact than monetary gifts of equivalent value. We also observe that when workers are offered the choice, they prefer receiving money, but reciprocate as if they received a nonmonetary gift. This result is consistent with the common saying, “it's the thought that counts.” We underline this point by showing that monetary gifts can effectively trigger reciprocity if the employer invests more time and effort into the gift's presentation.
‘The great transformation’ from customary exchange to impersonal markets is incomplete. Reciprocal exchange pervades modern societies. It takes the form of ‘gifts’, reciprocated without certainty. Reciprocity is driven by the pursuit of ‘regard’. Money is avoided in regard exchanges, because it is impersonal. Instead, regard signals are embodied in goods, in services, or in time (attention). The personalization of gifts authenticates the signal. Reciprocal exchange persists in family formation, in intergenerational transfers, in labour markets, in agriculture, the professions, in marketing, entrepreneurship, and also in corruption and crime. Reciprocal exchange is constrained by time and psychic energy, but is likely to persist as a preferred source of regard.
In this gem of a book, Natalie Zemon Davis explores the role of gifts in Renaissance France. From the King's bounty to the beggar's alms, from the lavish feasting and display of civic dignitaries to the humble tokens exchanged by peasant bride and groom, the giving and receiving of gifts - then, as now - held tremendous significance.
In this, his most famous work, Marcel Mauss presented to the world a book which revolutionized our understanding of some of the basic structures of society. By identifying the complex web of exchange and obligation involved in the act of giving, Mauss called into question many of our social conventions and economic systems. In a world rife with runaway consumption, The Gift continues to excite and challenge.