Quite confuse about social cognitive theory (SCT) variables?

How do I run a power analysis (a priori) on a model 81 of Hayes, which includes 2 parallel mediators and a serial mediator as well? Is this possible with G*Power settings or can anyone explain how to do this with other software? Thanks!

Dear Colleagues,

As a lead researcher, I am applying for a grant to the national science center. I am looking for junior researchers (without a PhD) in the fields of linguistics (applied linguistics, and psycholinguistics), political communication and cognitive science. This will be a 3-year, interdisciplinary project carried out by a renowned Polish university. I am looking for doctoral students from the United States, as this will be a comparative study in the field of political communication in Poland and the US.

Is anyone interested in participating?

Can anyone suggest me where I can get contacts?

I would appreciate your help & kind contribution!

Is there a simple way to determine the sample size required to calculate a moderated mediation? We are talking about a mediation with 3 mediators and one moderator. I would appreciate any tips!

is there any articles that explains these reciprocal determinism (personal, behavior and environment) in details

Model image attached. Many thanks.

While I am aware that there are some similarities (tenets) between Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory (SLT) and Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (e.g. similar tenets - reinforcement and observational learning), my question is what’s unique about Akers’ SLT that Bandura’s SCT can’t answer, and vice-versa?

In the main thread, I remarked that a "logic of opinion" would provide the epistemological (and metaphysical) bases for Orwell's imagined Ingsoc. In the infamous "Ministry of Truth" scenes, O'Brien comments on Winston's weakness in metaphysics; and indeed, the Party are masterly metaphysicians... the opinion of the Party is reality, and whatever deviates from that opinion is false (though it might *become* true - truth and falsity are relative to the opinion of the Party, which can never change. Therefore, if what was false becomes true, it has always been true. This is also inherent in the logic of opinion).

This is relativism pushed to its extreme, yet it is entirely 'logical' once one accepts the basic hypothesis that there is no distinction between a "truth" and a "widely-held belief".

I'm not, of course, suggesting that this is a serious argument against relativism in general; but it does provide an interesting little though experiment: how would a relativist argue against the parallel between her beliefs and those of Orwell's Ingsoc?

I had found a prehistoric site located in ambit of an old cemetery,some rural that was living near the cemetery,didn't allow me to excavate or to study this site,whereas these graves were very old and didn't belong to anybody(i never understood their reason)unfortunately this site has been destroyed(due to road construction)and i think if i had had enough anthropological knowledge and skill,this event would have never happend.