不同道德情境中大学生的道德情绪与干预倾向:人 际身份的调节作用

由特定情境诱发的道德情绪与后续的道德干预行为关系密切;而面对不同人际身份的违规者,当事人的道德情绪感受可能差异较大。本研究以大学生为被试探究不同道德情境中道德情绪和道德干预倾向之间的关系,以及违规者人际身份在其中的作用。结果发现:(1)相比不道德程度低的情境,在不道德程度高的情境中被试感受到更多内疚、羞耻和愤怒等道德情...     

明知故犯？故意不道德行为的影响因素和心理过程

故意不道德行为是指个体在明知行为违背了道德规范,但仍采取的不道德行为。研究表明,故意不道德行为存在众多诱发因素,尤其是道德自我概念具有重要的自我调节作用,在行为发生前后都产生重要影响。本文对故意不道德行为的影响因素进行了梳理,探索其行为发生前后的心理过程,并对既有的研究框架进行了整合。未来可以更关注无意识因素和心理动机因素对不道德行为的影响和作用机制,并尝试探索网络情境中的不道德行为。     

伦理型领导、工具主义伦理气氛与员工不道德行为：内部人身份感知的调节作用

通过对379名企业员工的问卷调查,探讨伦理型领导对员工不道德行为的影响机制。结果发现：伦理型领导与工具主义伦理气氛显著负相关;组织伦理气氛在伦理型领导与不道德行为之间起部分中介作用;内部人身份感知调节了组织伦理气氛在伦理型领导与不道德行为关系的中介作用。内部人身份感知水平越高,组织伦理气氛的中介作用越强。     

组织情境下的不道德行为现象:来自道德推脱理论的解释

为什么企业中的不道德行为会屡屡发生?这是一直以来困扰组织管理实践者和学者们的难题,不道德行为的发生与发展机制已经成为心理学研究的一个重要领域。其中,心理学视角下的道德推脱理论为这一难题提供了解释思路。在企业的现实情况中,可以从员工个体和组织领导两方面维度研究各自对应的组织情境因素通过道德推脱机制对不道德行为产生的影响。未来研究的关键在于探讨和实证检验组织情境下道德推脱机制的选择偏好对不道德行为的影响作用,不断丰富和加强道德推脱对员工个体以及领导不道德行为影响机理的研究。     

资质过剩感与亲组织不道德行为：心理特权与谦卑型领导的作用

运用自我评价理论视角,并采用两阶段追踪调查问卷方法收集数据,探讨了资质过剩感与亲组织不道德行为的关系以及心理特权和谦卑型领导在两者关系中的作用机制。实证分析结果表明：资质过剩感显著正向影响心理特权,心理特权在资质过剩感与亲组织不道德行为之间起到中介作用,谦卑型领导显著负向调节资质过剩感与心理特权的关系。研究对管理实践有一定的启示,丰富了资质过剩感和亲组织不道德行为理论。     

亲亲相隐何时休?关系对揭发意向影响的边界

当组织中做出不道德行为的人跟自己关系非常亲近时,员工可能不会揭发他们的不道德行为,进而给组织带来潜在的隐患。鉴于先前研究较少关注如何降低不道德情境中关系的包庇作用,本研究考察了组织和个体特征在削弱关系与揭发负向关系方面扮演的调节角色。结果表明,关系会抑制员工对不道德行为的揭发意向(研究1~3),且关系对员工揭发意向的负向影响受到了组织关系取向(研究1和3)与员工正直(研究2和3)的调节。随着组织关系取向的下降或员工正直程度的提升,关系对员工揭发意向的抑制作用逐步降低。这些结果对于组织内部揭发机制设计具有借鉴意义。     

低家庭社会经济地位与青少年社会适应的关系:感恩的补偿和调节效应

该研究采用家庭社会经济地位问卷、青少年外化问题行为调查表、焦虑抑郁量表、学业成就问卷和感恩问卷对1518名中学生进行调查,考察了低家庭社会经济地位(低家庭SES)与青少年社会适应的关系,以及感恩在其中的补偿和调节效应。结果发现:1)低家庭SES与外化问题行为和内化问题行为(以焦虑抑郁为指标)显著正相关,与学业成就显著负相关;2)感恩在低家庭SES与青少年社会适应各指标关系间的补偿效应均显著;3)感恩在低家庭SES与青少年社会适应各指标关系间的调节效应均不显著。这表明低家庭SES对青少年发展具有跨领域的不利影响,而感恩在其中具有显著"滞后的"补偿作用,但"同步的"风险缓冲作用有限。     

市场体系有效运作的伦理道德支点

市场作为配置资源的有效手段 ,其作用的发挥直接体现为市场体系的有效动作 ,表现为市场体系为人们提供越来越多满意度较高的产品和服务。而市场体系有效运作则不但依赖于相应的制度安排和制度环境 ,而且依赖于相应的道德支持。大量经验事实和伦理研究都一再证明 :市场主体合乎伦理的行为 (即道德的行为 )支持市场体系的运作 ,而市场主体不合伦理的行为 (即不道德的行为 )则扭曲市场体系 ,阻碍市场体系的有效运作。因此 ,我们寻找市场经济的道德基础 ,致力于建设与市场经济相适应的伦理道德体系 ,就必须从市场体系有效运作的维度把握它的伦理道德支点。     

早期气质对焦虑退缩行为的影响：社会适应的背景性作用

本追踪研究从发展的角度探讨了焦虑退缩行为与儿童的社会适应之间的关系, 并探讨了气质对焦虑退缩行为的影响。共132名儿童参与了本研究, 2岁时测查了儿童气质, 7岁和11岁时测查了儿童的焦虑退缩行为和社会适应。结果发现, 7岁时焦虑退缩行为与社会适应之间的相关不显著, 11岁时焦虑退缩与积极的适应结果呈负相关, 与消极的适应结果呈正相关; 儿童2岁时的行为接近显著预测儿童7岁和11岁时的焦虑退缩行为, 且儿童2岁时的自我调节能力能够调节行为接近与11岁时的焦虑退缩之间的关系。研究表明, 从7岁到11岁, 焦虑退缩行为对社会适应的影响变得消极, 在对焦虑退缩行为的预测中, 存在不同气质特质之间的交互作用。     

动机视角下的亲组织不道德行为

亲组织不道德行为是近年来组织行为学界广泛关注的研究议题。但是, 关于亲组织不道德行为的概念内涵, 目前还存在一定模糊性。基于动机视角, 从亲组织不道德行为的定义、特征、动机、类型等方面, 对亲组织不道德行为的概念模糊性进行细致解构与深入剖析, 形成相对系统的亲组织不道德行为概念内涵; 并据此概念内涵背后的动机逻辑, 对现有的亲组织不道德行为影响因素进行分类梳理, 阐释其对亲组织不道德行为的影响机制; 最后, 从细分类型、测量工具、研究视角、影响因素、抑制机制、影响效应与本土化等方面为后续研究提供针对性的建议。     

青少年网络不道德行为与父母教养方式的关系——道德脱离、责任心、道德同一性的中介作用

研究采用问卷法,对764名青少年进行测试,用结构方程模型检验了教养方式、责任心、道德同一性、道德脱离和网络不道德行为之间的关系模型。结果表明,拒绝型教养方式通过责任心、道德同一性和道德脱离的中介来间接影响网络不道德行为。责任心可以直接作用于网络不道德行为,也可以通过道德脱离的中介来影响网络不道德行为。道德同一性只能通过道德脱离来影响不道德行为。     

团队内非伦理行为的社会互动机制

自从“安然”等一系列非伦理行为事件爆发后, 如何干预非伦理行为就成为理论界和实践界共同关注的焦点。但以往的研究主要集中于探讨如何抑制单个个体的非伦理行为, 而对该行为可能产生的社会互动和蔓延机制缺乏系统探讨。本研究立足于中国特定文化背景中, 采取实验、问卷调查、案例等多种方法, 对团队内非伦理行为的社会互动及其机制进行了系统和深入的研究。本研究的内容可分为三个方面：(1)探讨个体初始化的非伦理行为是如何导致集体实施非伦理行为的, 重点研究个体社会地位和团队工作互依性的调节作用; (2)探讨集体非伦理行为对焦点个体的影响, 重点研究从众心理和道德同一性的中介机制, 以及集体主义导向和传统性的调节机制; (3)探讨上述两种非伦理行为社会影响的干预策略。本研究将深入研究团队内非伦理行为的社会互动机制, 丰富团队环境下行为伦理的研究成果, 从而为我国企业干预非伦理行为社会互动提供有效的策略和方法。     

How social perception can automatically influence behavior

Do we always know the reasons for our actions? Or is our behavior sometimes unknowingly and unintentionally influenced by what we have recently perceived? It has been traditionally assumed that the automatic influence of knowledge in memory is limited to people's interpretation of the world, and stops short of shaping their actual behavior. Researchers in experimental social psychology have begun to challenge this assumption by documenting how people's behaviors can be unknowingly influenced by knowledge that is incidentally activated in memory during social perception. We review findings that suggest that the social knowledge that is incidentally activated while reading words or imagining events subsequently affects participants' behaviors across a range of ostensibly unrelated domains.     

Blind ethics: Closing one's eyes polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior

Four experiments demonstrate that closing one’s eyes affects ethical judgment and behavior because it induces people to mentally simulate events more extensively. People who considered situations with their eyes closed rather than open judged immoral behaviors as more unethical and moral behaviors as more ethical. In addition, considering potential decisions with closed eyes decreased stated intentions to behave ethically and actual self-interested behavior. This relationship was mediated by the more extensive mental simulation that occurred with eyes closed rather than open, which, in turn, intensified emotional reactions to the ethical situation. We discuss the implications of these findings for moral psychology and ethical decision making.     

Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel

ABSTRACT— In a world where encounters with dishonesty are frequent, it is important to know if exposure to other people's unethical behavior can increase or decrease an individual's dishonesty. In Experiment 1 , our confederate cheated ostentatiously by finishing a task impossibly quickly and leaving the room with the maximum reward. In line with social-norms theory, participants' level of unethical behavior increased when the confederate was an in-group member, but decreased when the confederate was an out-group member. In Experiment 2 , our confederate instead asked a question about cheating, which merely strengthened the saliency of this possibility. This manipulation decreased the level of unethical behavior among the other group members. These results suggest that individuals' unethicality does not depend on the simple calculations of cost-benefit analysis, but rather depends on the social norms implied by the dishonesty of others and also on the saliency of dishonesty.     

Subjective probabilities and moral judgments

The two experiments reported here examined the relationship between subjective probability estimates and moral judgments (credit and blame assignment, trait attributions, and behavior evaluations). Subjects read about situations that varied in outcome valence (moral or immoral); in addition, the nature of situational demands (Experiment 1) or behavior frequency (Experiment 2) was varied. In the first experiment, subjective probabilities were related to judgments of immoral behaviors (but not moral behaviors), whereas the situational demands only had an impact on judgments of moral behaviors. Experiment 2 included a wider range of behavioral situations, and the probability estimates and moral judgments were assessed independently. In contrast to the first experiment, subjective probabilities were related to trait and behavior ratings of both moral and immoral acts. Consistent with the first experiment, however, subjective probabilities predicted blame but not credit. Across both studies, the prior expectancies were more strongly related to evaluations of immoral acts than moral acts. Implications for understanding the determinants of judgments of moral and immoral acts are discussed.     

Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad

Past good deeds can liberate individuals to engage in behaviors that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic, behaviors that they would otherwise avoid for fear of feeling or appearing immoral. We review research on this moral self-licensing effect in the domains of political correctness, prosocial behavior, and consumer choice. We also discuss remaining theoretical tensions in the literature: Do good deeds reframe bad deeds (moral credentials) or merely balance them out (moral credits)? When does past behavior liberate and when does it constrain? Is self-licensing primarily for others’ benefit (self-presentational) or is it also a way for people to reassure themselves that they are moral people? Finally, we propose avenues for future research that could begin to address these unanswered questions.     

Bad for me or bad for us? Interpersonal orientations and the impact of losses on unethical behavior

The present research examines the role of allocations of losses versus gains on the emergence of unethical behavior as a function of people's social value orientation. The authors demonstrate that (a) proselfs regard unethical behavior to prevent losses as more justified than prosocials (Study 1) and (b) proselfs engage in more unethical behavior to prevent losses than prosocials (Study 2). These differences are explained by prosocials' greater concern for harm to interdependent others in the domain of losses. A third study further substantiates these findings by revealing that unethical behavior to prevent losses increases among prosocials as harm to others is reduced. In sum, these results reveal that depending on whether people attend only to their self-interest or also consider the outcomes of others, losses either may increase or curtail unethical conduct. Considering social value orientations thus may reconcile conflicting theoretical perspectives on the impact of losses on social decisions.     

遗传和环境对婚姻的影响

遗传和环境是影响人的两个根本因素,人的心理和行为是在二者及其共同作用的基础上逐渐发展的。婚姻是大多数人一生中最重要的事件之一,同样也受到遗传和环境的制约。文章从择偶、婚姻质量、离婚等婚姻生活的不同方面着手,回顾和评价了进化心理学、社会与文化心理学和行为遗传学对婚姻中遗传和环境影响因素的研究