孤独症儿童互惠行为特征：自我-他人区分的视角

互惠指个体以相似方式回报他人行为的社会准则。现有研究依据心理盲、极端男性脑理论假说对孤独症儿童互惠行为进行深入探讨,但存在诸多矛盾或不一致。通过引入“自我-他人”区分视角,从弱中央统合理论提出自我中心偏向和中心改变偏向解释,有助于调和矛盾并提出临床建议。未来需进一步深究个体模仿和抑制控制的潜在作用、探索分离条件下“自我-他人”观点对该群体互惠行为的潜在调节、开发生态化互惠干预模式。     

积极领导的消极效应：研究主题、分析视角和理论机制

在领导力研究领域, 积极领导力通常被视为提升组织、团队和下属产出的关键因素之一。近年来, 上述观点却不断受到质疑。在此背景下, 积极领导力潜在的消极效应日益引起关注, 并逐渐演变成为一个前沿课题。从现有的41项实证研究来看：(1)在研究主题上, 现有研究主要考察了变革、授权、道德、包容和仁慈等行为导向和领导-下属交换等关系导向领导风格的消极效应, 涉及对下属、团队和领导自身三类主体的消极作用; (2)在分析视角上, 主要包括两大类——构建兼具“积极效应”和“消极效应”的模型和单纯只考虑某一领导风格潜在的“消极效应”, 前者可以细分为三类双刃剑效应和两类非线性效应; (3)在理论机制上, 积极领导风格的消极效应可以用社会认定、社会交换、精神分析、认知加工和资源相关理论进行解释。未来研究可着重: (1)形成一个系统解释积极领导消极效应的整合性理论、框架或模型; (2)从领导类型、消极效应表现和作用机制方面进一步进行实证探讨; (3)挖掘积极领导消极效应的边界条件和破解因素, 为实践应用提供启示; (4)开展跨群体和针对特定群体的探讨。     

内隐自尊的特性：来自EAST的证据

采用外部情绪性Simon任务（EAST）对109名大学生对代表自我和他人的刺激词的态度差异进行测量,从而探讨内隐自尊的特性。结果显示：在个体的认知图式中,对自我持有一种内隐的积极的评价或态度,对他人持有一种内隐的相对消极的评价或态度。具体表现在：（1）内隐自尊的特性是将自己与积极的评价和情感相联系,将他人与消极的评价和情感相联系;（2）自我姓名激活的积极的内隐自我态度比一般性自我词更为强烈,而他人姓名激活的消极的内隐态度比一般性非我词更弱。本研究表明,EAST能有效检测出内隐自尊效应,并可以同时获得个体对自我和他人的内隐态度的强度和方向,为内隐自尊研究提供了一种新的有效的方法,但其应用仍需谨慎。     

低自尊还是高“他尊”?高、低社交焦虑者的不同内隐自尊特性——来自EAST的证据

采用简版负性评价恐惧量表和青少年社交焦虑量表对627名高中生进行施测，筛选出社交焦虑高分组和低分组，运用外部情感西蒙任务(Extrinsic Affective Simon Task, EAST)测量两组被试对自我和对他人的态度，探讨高、低社交焦虑者的内隐自尊特性。结果表明，高、低社交焦虑者存在截然不同的内隐“自我-他人”态度。具体表现在：(1)高、低社交焦虑者均有显著积极的内隐自尊；低社交焦虑者有显著消极的内隐“他尊”,而高社交焦虑者的消极内隐“他尊”并不显著；(2)高社交焦虑者的积极内隐自尊和消极内隐“他尊”均显著弱于低社交焦虑者，高社交焦虑者的自我偏爱程度较弱。研究表明，社交焦虑个体的内隐自尊特性是：相对低的内隐自尊(对自己积极不足)、相对高的内隐“他尊”(不消极看待他人),可能正是这种削弱的自我偏爱倾向，才是其核心症结。     

积极心理学的建设性冲突与视域转换

积极心理学的过度发展致使积极、消极心理研究再失衡,表现为"积极暴政"。同时,亦有"积极的悖论"、"消极思维的积极心理"等少部分研究对其进行批评、反叛。这就形成了两种互为冲突的研究进路:"积极心理-积极效应"研究进路,"积极-消极悖反"研究进路。二者冲突的建设性为实现积极心理学的视域拓展与转换提供了基础条件。其视域拓展与转换集中体现为研究大类的重新划分,即由积极心理-积极效应、消极心理-积极效应、积极心理-消极效应等三类拓展为积极-积极、积极-消极、消极-积极、消极-消极、积极×消极-积极×消极等五类。同时,视域拓展与转换并非一蹴而就,还需要引入辩证思维、情境变量等。可以认为,积极心理学的未来发展是趋于平衡的、情境的、辩证的、文化的,它力图理解人的心理复杂性、生命完整性等。     

项目表述效应对人格测验信度和效标效度的影响——以核心自我评价量表(CSES)为例

项目表述效应是指由项目表述方式的差异引起的与测量内容无关的系统变异,项目表述效应模型的统计本质是一种双因子模型。本研究以核心自我评价量表(CSES)为例,探讨项目表述效应对人格测验信效度的影响。采用核心自我评价量表、生活满意度量表和积极情感消极情感量表对340名“蚁族”进行测查。结果表明,CSES在核心自我评价特质以外,还存在一个反向题项目表述效应因子;忽视项目表述效应对CSES的同质性信度和效标关联效度有重要影响：高估CSES的同质性信度,低估核心自我评价与生活满意度、积极情感的正相关,高估核心自我评价与消极情感的负相关。     

越多接触就越愿意接触?取决于效价与效能

在我国族际背景中, 检验两种效价族际接触的效应及其机制。研究1从内地和新疆抽取有过族际互动经验的维吾尔族和汉族大学生(内地、新疆的汉族、维吾尔族样本量分别为448、791, 375、901), 研究2从宁夏抽取回族和汉族中学生(回族565, 汉族957)。两个研究共在6个样本上检验积极和消极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 并检验族际自我效能的中介作用。结果表明, 积极族际接触明显多于消极族际接触; 积极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越高, 消极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越低, 积极族际接触的促进效应大于消极族际接触的阻碍效应; 族际自我效能部分中介积极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 能更有效的中介消极族际接触的效应; 两种效价族际接触的效应在多数群体和少数群体间总体上没有预期的差异。研究结果对于了解我国族际接触的现状和效应、丰富群际接触研究证据有理论意义, 对于加强各民族交往交流交融具有实践意义。     

外群体一定贬损吗：来自蒙古族和汉族群体的证据

本研究采用单一复述法考察了我国非冲突性、地位平等的蒙古族和汉族群体,在面对面传递彼此不同效价的民族刻板印象信息时的群体效应。实验1证明了蒙古族和汉族间表现出的并非“外群体贬损”,而是“外群体偏爱”。实验2通过考察人际敏感性和群际态度两个变量验证了蒙汉间外群体偏爱的真实性,但这一效应在群际态度消极的高敏感汉族中表现出了人为增益性;而且发现了蒙汉族际沟通中的不同信息传递模式,蒙古族同时着眼于积极和消极信息,而汉族更偏重于积极信息。由此可知,外群体并不一定引发贬损,群体性质兹事体大。     

双元孝道代际传递:亲子性别和子女年龄的调节作用

配对调查了591户家庭的亲子被试,考察了亲子女性别、子女年龄对双元孝道代际传递的影响。结果显示：（1）权威性孝道和互惠性孝道分别在父亲、母子与子女之间具有相似传递模式,但母亲互惠性孝道还能够预测子女权威性孝道;（2）子女性别能显著调节整个模型,母亲互惠性孝道能预测男性子女权威性孝道,但不能预测女性子女的权威性孝道,且母子之间互惠性孝道传递效应显著高于母女,并显著高于父子之间的同一路径系数;（3）子女年龄对模型的部分路径系数具有显著调节作用,母亲互惠性孝道仅能预测成年子女权威性孝道,母亲对成年子女的互惠性孝道代际传递效应显著高于父亲对成年子女,而父亲对青少年子女的互惠性孝道代际传递效应显著高于其对成年子女。据此研究结果,亲子性别和子女年龄是影响双元孝道代际传递的重要“传递带”。     

自我—他人危机决策信息加工过程的差异:来自眼动的证据

本研究采用iView X-RED眼动仪,分两个实验来考察自我-他人危机决策的信息加工过程的差异。实验一采用单因素实验设计探讨自我-他人危机决策的信息加工过程,结果表明：为自我决策组的平均阅读时间、平均注视时间、平均注视次数、平均凝视时间、平均回视次数都显著高于为他人决策组。实验二采用2（任务框架：积极,消极）x2（决策者角色：为自我、为他人）混合实验设计,结果表明：在积极框架下,为自我决策组平均阅读时间、平均注视时间、平均注视次数、平均凝视时间、平均回视次数显著高于为他人决策组;在消极框架下,两个组没有显著差异。总体表现为,自我-他人危机决策的信息加工过程存在差异,且受任务框架的影响。     

自私行为的传递效应

自私的传递效应指遭遇他人自私对待的个体也自私地对待无辜他人的现象。在这个过程中, 示范性规范、心理权利起着中介作用, 个体的公正敏感性、道德认同, 以及情境中的道德凸显和匿名性起着调节作用。已有研究多关注个体如何惩罚与报复直接伤害自己的自私者, 较少关注自私行为的受害者如何对待无辜的第三方。未来研究可关注他人自私如何通过影响个体的认知, 如普遍信任和道德判断, 进而影响其对待无辜者的态度与行为, 并且澄清情绪及共情在其中的作用。     

When and Why People Evaluate Negative Reciprocity as More Fair Than Positive Reciprocity

If you are kind to me, I am likely to reciprocate and doing so feels fair. Many theories of social exchange assume that such reciprocity and fairness are well aligned with one another. We argue that this correspondence between reciprocity and fairness is restricted to interpersonal dyads and does not govern more complex multilateral interactions. When multiple people are involved, reciprocity leads to partiality, which may be seen as unfair by outsiders. We report seven studies, conducted with people from the United States, in which participants were asked to evaluate situations involving resource distribution in contexts such as economic games, government, and the workplace. Specifically, we find that equal resource distribution in multilateral interactions is seen as more fair than engaging in reciprocity. We also find that negative reciprocity is seen as more fair than positive reciprocity in these multilateral situations because positive reciprocity is perceived as based in favoritism. We rule out alternative explanations and demonstrate that there are contexts where favoritism is not viewed as unfair. These findings are important for theories of fairness and reciprocity as they demonstrate the central role of perceived partiality in the evaluation of multi‐party resource allocation.     

Solidarity and Reciprocity Between People With and Without Disabilities

Governments of contemporary welfare states call upon citizens to care for people with psychiatric or intellectual disabilities. This is deemed sensible and morally just. However, social–psychological theory suggests that stereotyping may stand in the way of engaging into contact. Sociological theory suggests that the giving of help is based on either balanced or generalized reciprocity. Balanced reciprocity depends on one's ability to ‘pay back’, which people with disabilities may have trouble doing. Generalized reciprocity depends on close social bonds, while people with disabilities often have fewer social bonds than other citizens. The current study aimed to find out whether citizens—despite socio‐psychological and sociological theories expecting otherwise—enter into supporting relationships with people with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. Although we found socio‐psychological and sociological theory to be largely correct, we also found people to be more creative than theory assumes. A smile can be experienced as a return gift, thus including people with intellectual disabilities in the web of balanced reciprocity. Some people create new social bonds to include people with disabilities: they feel close to them because they had a job in the healthcare sector or because they had a family member with a disability. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, recognition of each other's problems can create feelings of similarity and concomitant reciprocity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What is involved in forgiving?

Conclusion I have argued that forgiveness paradigmatically involves overcoming moral anger, of which resentment is the central case. I have argued, as well, that forgiveness may involve overcoming any form of anger so long as the belief that you have been wrongfully harmed is partially constitutive of it, and that overcoming other negative emotions caused by a wrongdoer's misdeed may, given appropriate qualifications, count as forgiveness. Those qualifications indicate, however, significant differences between moral anger and other negative emotions; differences which must be taken into account when determining whether overcoming negative emotions other than moral anger count as forgiveness. I have proposed, too, that forgiveness requires neither overcoming all negative feelings (other than moral anger) nor the judgment that the offender is a wrongdoer.I must acknowledge that my analysis is incomplete, focusing as it does on the forgiver rather than on the person forgiven. After all, there are two sides to forgiveness. Not all forgiving involves a struggle to overcome negative feelings; sometimes it is a social transaction of a more casual sort that is effected by the simple speech act I forgive you. My analysis is incomplete insofar as it treats exclusively of forgiveness as a process and fails to offer an analysis of forgiveness as an act. Finally, a complete theory of forgiveness requires an account of the conditions under which forgiveness qualifies as a moral virtue, and such an account is beyond the scope of this essay. Though I have not offered a complete theory of forgiveness, my effort to clarify a dimension of what is involved in a common type of forgiveness may clear the way for answering related questions about it, and thereby lead to a fuller account of forgiveness as a moral phenomenon.     

Control Interaction

Summary

The positive norm of reciprocity makes two minimal demands: (a) help those who help you; and (b) do not harm those who help you. The complementary norm of retaliation may be interpreted as making two similar demands: (a) harm those who harm you; and (b) do not help those who harm you. Previous research has verified that the first demand for both norms does govern human behavior, but has never looked at the second demands. This study investigated the second minimal demands of both norms by using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Half of the Ss were either given benefits or not by a C, and then were permitted to shock her. The remaining Ss were either shocked or not shocked by a C and then allowed to benefit her. The predictions were that Ss would not harm those who benefited them and would not benefit those who harmed them. Results did not support these hypotheses. The Ss' impressions of the other person and of themselves were consistent with the behavioral data. It was concluded that the reciprocity norms must be delimited to behaviors within positive or negative modes of reinforcement.     

不同博弈情境下社会排斥对社会决策的影响作用

本研究借助经典的最后通牒博弈范式(UG)和独裁者博弈范式(DG),将回应者/接受者作为研究对象,考察了不同公平条件、平等条件下社会排斥对社会决策的影响作用。实验结果发现:(1)在面对高不公平性的分配方案时,被排斥组比被接纳组更倾向于拒绝接受该分配方案;(2)被排斥组对高不公平性分配方案的满意度要显著低于被接纳组;(3)被排斥组在不平等的博弈(DG)条件下对分配方案的满意度显著低于平等博弈(UG)条件下对分配方案的满意度。本研究结果说明,社会排斥情境下的被试对公平与平等因素更加敏感:在高不公平条件下,被排斥的个体表现出更少的合作互惠行为,甚至不惜放弃自身经济利益,也要惩罚博弈对方的不公平行为;此外,在不平等的博弈条件下,被排斥的个体产生了更多的消极情绪体验。本文的研究结果提高了社会决策研究的生态效度和传统决策模型的预测效度,有利于更加完整透彻地了解社会决策的影响因素。     

Punishing Those Responsible for the Prison Abuses at Abu Ghraib: The Influence of the Negative Reciprocity Norm (NRN)

The negative reciprocity norm (NRN) is the personal moral code specifying retaliation as a proper response to wrongdoing ( Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004 ). We examined the role of negative reciprocity in interpreting and reacting to the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. Results showed that people who believed that American soldiers behaved wrongly at Abu Ghraib were more likely to view punishing the soldiers responsible as a highly moral response and were less likely to contribute money to a charitable organization that helps American soldiers. These relationships were only present among those highly endorsing the negative reciprocity norm.     

The effect of practice on recall of emotional information in individuals with generalized social phobia

Understanding memory processes in social anxiety is important because these individuals often report negative memories of anxiety-provoking situations and because of the recent emphasis on learning and memory in models of anxiety. The authors examined the effect of learning on memory for negative social, positive social, and nonsocial information using the retrieval-induced forgetting paradigm in individuals with generalized social phobia (GSPs) and in nonanxious controls (NACs). Words were presented in 1 of 3 practice conditions: practiced words from a practiced category, unpracticed words from a practiced category, and unpracticed words from an unpracticed category. GSPs and NACs showed the same patterns of memory for practice categories for positive social and nonsocial words. However, for negative social words, GSPs benefited less from practice and were hurt less from the effect of practicing competing negative social information than were NACs. This pattern of processing may hamper GSPs' learning of, and habituation to, negative social information.     

In-group Bias and Culture of Collectivism

In this paper I present an argument that culture of collectivism which characterizes Japanese society is to be conceived in terms of an equilibrium between socio-relational and cognitive traits in which people have acquired expectations for generalized reciprocity within, not across, group boundaries. Maintenance of harmony among group members and voluntary cooperation toward group goals – the characteristics of collectivist culture – are often considered to be fundamentally psychological in nature. It is usually considered that members of a collectivist culture like to maintain harmony and cooperate toward group goals, or that "culture" sneaks into the minds of people and drives them to behave in such a manner. According to this view, culture is a fundamentally psychological or subjective matter. This is the view that I want to challenge in this paper.     

Other-Sacrificing Options*

I argue that you can be permitted to discount the interests of your adversaries even though doing so would be impartially suboptimal. This means that, in addition to the kinds of moral options that the literature traditionally recognises, there exist what I call other-sacrificing options. I explore the idea that you cannot discount the interests of your adversaries as much as you can favour the interests of your intimates; if this is correct, then there is an asymmetry between negative partiality toward your adversaries and positive partiality toward your intimates.