社会认知中热情与能力的补偿效应

刻板印象内容模型(SCM)提出了热情与能力社会认知维度, 这两个维度之间存在着特殊的补偿效应。补偿效应是在比较两个基本维度的情境下, 为了区分两个社会目标, 通过热情与能力之间的补偿使社会目标形成反差的一种倾向。其心理机制可能通过对比效应、系统公正理论或混合印象预期理论来解释。可以通过直接和间接的方法来测量补偿效应。补偿效应包括单维补偿和双维补偿两种基本类型, 其中单维补偿又可分为能力补偿热情以及热情补偿能力两种。补偿效应的研究仍处于起步阶段, 其理论研究和实际应用研究仍需要进一步深化和扩展。     

金钱激励在社会排斥影响不确定性决策中的调节作用

研究从金钱补偿的视角考察社会排斥对不确定性决策的影响以及金钱激励的调节作用。实验发现,有金钱激励时,被排斥者在爱荷华赌博任务(Iowa gambling task,IGT)中的行为分数(组块2和3的选牌净分数和总的盈利分数)显著高于社会接纳者,表现为风险规避; 在无金钱激励时,被排斥者在IGT任务中的行为分数(组块4和5的选牌净分数和总的盈利分数)显著低于被接纳者,表现为风险寻求。实验结果表明社会排斥对不确定性决策的影响受到金钱激励的调制。     

道德情绪：道德行为的中介调节

道德情绪是心理学的一个重要研究主题。道德情绪是个体根据一定的道德标准评价自己或他人的行为和思想时所产生的一种情绪体验。它是一种复合情绪, 主要包括厌恶、移情、内疚, 羞耻等。道德情绪影响下人类会产生某些典型行为, 这主要包括道德洁净行为和道德补偿行为。心理学研究道德情绪的实验范式很多, 主要有行为回忆范式、实物或图片刺激范式、情境设置范式等。有关道德情绪的未来研究主要应注重于探讨正性道德情绪在道德发展中的作用, 探讨道德情绪对群体行为的影响, 以及探讨道德情绪在不同文化背景下的价值意义。     

如何唤起和缓解重大损失情绪—— 来自行为和脑成像的证据

本研究在没有真实伤害的情况下研究重大损失情绪及相应的脑机制。通过一系列行为和脑成像实验, 研究者们摸索出了可靠诱发重大损失情绪的范式, 并从对比效应和金钱补偿角度初步探讨了缓解这种情绪的方法。研究发现, 由于自我防御机制的存在, 抑制了被迫接受条件下重大损失情绪的唤起, 但却成功唤起了被迫选择条件下重大损失的情绪。此外, 研究还发现, 金钱补偿和对比效应都是缓解重大损失情绪的有效策略。本研究不仅有利于认识重大损失情绪的信息加工机制, 而且也为涉及重大损失情绪的心理咨询和保险理赔制度等提供了行为和脑成像证据。     

金钱概念激活与金钱功能偏好对自我损耗后利他的影响

金钱启动能够提高自我损耗后个体的利他,而金钱功能也可能对损耗后个体利他产生不可忽视的影响。实验让处于自我损耗状态的被试数金钱或白纸,然后测量其利他水平及其对金钱功能的内隐偏好。结果证实了金钱启动的积极效应。此外,在数金钱和数白纸两种条件下,金钱象征性功能偏好对自我损耗后个体利他的效应是相反的。这表明,激活金钱概念与偏好金钱象征性功能都有可能补偿自我损耗后的消极影响,但两者的补偿作用是相互独立的。     

公共物品的价值——对外部负效应的支付意愿研究

污染控制问题是与外部效应(Externalities)紧密联系的一个重要的理论问题。在经济学中,外部效应是指“商品的生产和消费不仅给直接消费者和生产者带来了收益和成本．还给其他人带来了收益和成本”或“某甲在为某乙提供一些服务的过程中(这种服务是有报酬的),附带地也给其他人(不是同类服务的生产者)提供服务或带来损害,这种服务得不到受益方支付的报酬,也不能使受害者的利益得到补偿”。     

补偿他人还是保护自己?内疚与羞耻情绪对合作行为的影响差异

作为两种常见且易被混淆的自我意识情绪, 诸多研究者对内疚和羞耻的产生前因及影响后效进行研究, 尤其是近年来的研究逐渐关注两者对合作行为的影响。我们通过对已有研究进行梳理发现, 内疚和羞耻对合作行为的影响及其机制存在差异, 内疚的影响更为稳定及具有普适性, 羞耻的影响具有复杂性和多样性, 更容易受到其他因素的影响。内疚和羞耻对合作行为的不同影响可从动机机制和调节机制两方面进行解释。首先, 动机机制包括内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机以及羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机。内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机主要体现在维护社会互动中的公平; 弥补对他人造成的伤害, 降低自己和他人的痛苦; 修复人际关系, 重新获得他人或自己的接纳与认同。羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机主要体现在释放消极的情绪状态; 维护积极的自我形象和声誉, 修复自我; 保护自我, 防止后续伤害及不良后果。总体而言, 内疚者关注过失行为及后果, 侧重于对受害他人的补偿或对与他人关系的修复, 而羞耻者关注整体自我的受损, 侧重于对自我的保护和对自己社会形象的修复, 基于此, 我们在前人研究的基础上构建了内疚与羞耻影响合作行为的动机机制对比模型图。其次, 调节机制涉及到个体因素和情境因素的调节作用, 其中个体因素包括认知因素、社会价值取向、自我控制能力、情绪特质和情绪状态, 情境因素包括暴露情境和掩蔽情境、实验情境和日常情境、相关情境和不相关情境。具体而言, 内疚对合作行为的影响的较少受情境的限制, 而羞耻受情境因素限制较多, 在暴露情境、相关情境中更能促进合作行为的产生, 而在掩蔽情境、不相关情境中, 羞耻较难影响个体的合作抉择, 且无论是实验室情境还是日常情境, 内疚似乎都比羞耻更易影响合作。最后, 鉴于内疚与羞耻的诱发和测量方法的有效性仍需检验, 两种情绪对合作行为影响的过程机制和生理机制仍不明晰, 个体因素影响的研究尚不充足以及跨文化研究较为缺乏, 未来研究可以从内疚和羞耻诱发与测量方法的有效性, 情绪作用发生的内在过程和生理机制, 情绪影响的个体和文化差异这几方面进行扩展和深挖。     

人情与公正的抉择:社会距离对第三方干预的影响

第三方干预(third-party intervention)是一种重要的利他行为,它包括惩罚和补偿两种措施。本研究结合情境性问卷与实验法,采用修改后的独裁者博弈范式(Dictator Game,DG),让被试作为第三方对朋友或者陌生人的不公平行为进行干预,考察社会距离对第三方干预的影响。研究发现:(1)对于朋友提出的不公平方案,个体对其的惩罚轻于陌生人,而对第二方(无权者)的补偿没有显著差异。(2)个体对朋友的不公平提议的公平性判断高于陌生人,但提议引发的情绪体验没有显著差异。上述结果表明,社会距离可能通过影响个体对不公平行为的公平感知,进而影响其第三方干预行为。     

赢者诅咒：心理机制、影响因素及应对策略

赢者诅咒是指在拍卖情境中, 竞价者为了获得拍卖品会过高估计其价值, 竞价成功以后当他发现其价值和自己之前的期望不一致时所产生的一种“诅咒”心理。赢者诅咒现象普遍存在于企业的资产拍卖、兼并重组、博彩游戏、投资决策等领域。损失规避和过度自信理论是赢者诅咒的主要心理机制, 而其影响因素主要有竞拍商品价值的不确定性、竞价人数、信息因素和竞价经验等。赢者诅咒的应对策略主要包括联合竞标、信息共享和学习。未来对赢者诅咒的研究需要进一步探讨赢者诅咒的心理机制、研究范式及本土化等问题。     

真实和虚拟金钱奖赏影响风险决策行为*

在风险情境下人类如何决策是长久以来心理学和经济学研究中一个极具挑战性的核心问题。众多研究采用真实或虚拟金钱作为奖赏强化物来探索风险决策行为的过程和机制,但对金钱奖赏真实性如何影响决策了解很少。仿真气球冒险任务(BART：Balloon Analogue Risk Task)可以在实验室条件下有效评估个体在真实社会中的风险行为。本研究采用 BART任务,通过两个实验探讨和比较了真实与虚拟金钱奖赏对风险决策行为的影响。实验一的结果发现,与虚拟金钱奖赏相比,真实金钱奖赏情境下的风险决策更容易受上一次决策结果的影响,上一次决策失败会导致被试的风险偏好水平显著降低(平均吹气球的次数显著减少),同时决策失败(气球吹爆)次数也显著减少,提示真实金钱奖赏下有更强的反馈学习效应。实验二重复了实验一的结果,并进一步发现,虚拟金钱奖赏的幅度对被试的风险决策行为没有影响,而真实金钱奖赏的幅度能显著改变被试的风险决策行为,较大幅度的真实金钱奖赏可以显著降低被试的风险偏好水平,但这种奖赏幅度对风险偏好的调控效应只对感觉寻求水平低的被试有效,感觉寻求水平高的被试不受影响。这些发现表明真实与虚拟金钱奖赏对风险决策行为有不同的影响。我们的结果可以用风险决策的后悔理论或齐当别模型来解释。     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

宽宏大量与睚眦必报:宽恕和报复对愤怒的降低作用

本研究通过3个实验比较宽恕和报复对愤怒的降低作用。采用假设情景的方法,实验1通过在冒犯行为之后直接启动宽恕或报复,结果显示宽恕比报复对愤怒的降低作用更好,并且对消极情绪也具有降低作用;实验2考察在不同冒犯行为意图下宽恕与报复对愤怒的降低作用,结果显示不管是有意而为还是无心之过的冒犯行为,宽恕对愤怒的降低作用均要优于报复。实验3要求被试在冒犯行为后进行宽恕或报复,结果显示宽恕和报复对愤怒均有降低作用,但是宽恕的降低效果要显著优于报复。研究显示,对于冒犯行为后的愤怒感,宽恕的降低作用优于报复。     

“得寸进尺”还是“适可而止”:冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为

对于冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为,已有研究存矛盾之处,有研究认为冒犯者得到宽恕后会再次伤害被冒犯者,但也有研究认为会停止对对方的伤害。本研究通过囚徒困境范式研究冒犯者得到宽恕以后的行为。结果显示:(1)当对方是熟悉的人时,冒犯者在得到宽恕后更倾向于不再伤害对方;(2)当存在报复的可能性时,无论得到宽恕与否,冒犯者都不倾向于再次伤害对方;(3)当冒犯者是被迫伤害被冒犯者时,无论得到宽恕与否,其都不倾向于再次伤害对方。总体而言,冒犯者在得到宽恕后更倾向于不再伤害对方。该结果一定程度上澄清了以往研究的矛盾之处,并对人际互动具有一定的指导意义。。     

Placing the Blame for crime in press reports

This study examined the attributions of responsibility contained in factual accounts of crime in a number of Canadian daily newspapers. The focus was upon the relative amount of coverage accorded crime suspects and victims, as well as upon the presence or absence of references to the victim's contribution to the offense. Also, examined were the effects of the type of crime involved and the gender of the parties to an offense upon offender/victim coverage and references to victim contribution.

As expected, offenders tended to receive greater coverage than victims. The coverage of the offender, relative to the victim, tended to be greatest when the offender was a male and a property, rather than violent crime was involved. The victim's gender did not exercise an effect on offender/victim coverage. In about one‐quarter of the articles, a mention was made of the victim's contribution to the offense. Such references to the victim's role were more likely to be found where the offender was a female, the victim a male and where the offense was violent in nature. These findings about the media portrayals of the respective roles in crime of offenders and victims, as well as the effects of the type of crime and gender on these roles, conformed, in large part, to what is known about the actual dynamics of criminal behavior.     

影响再次侵犯的实验研究:报复、惩罚、沉默、还是宽恕?

本研究从侵犯者角度出发,探讨受害者不同应对策略是否会影响侵犯者的再次侵犯。研究1采用囚徒困境范式,考察62名大学生应对策略和报复机会对再次侵犯的影响。研究2采用故事情境法,考察227名被试应对策略、年龄对悔改动机和再次侵犯的影响。结果发现,应对策略、年龄的主效应显著,二者交互作用显著,被试年龄越大对报复者侵犯的可能性越低。启示我国目前仍应以报应性司法模式为主,可在青少年群体尝试恢复性司法。。     

PUNITIVE JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS SOCIAL RECONCILIATION

The notion of justice is broad and complex. When we pursue justice too harshly after a conflict, we create new injustice and more victims; when we do not, the offenders usually keep hurting others and the violence is prolonged. As a matter of fact, only a few perpetrators can be punished. On the other hand, does punishment of the offender alone heal the victim or restore peace and harmony in society? Moreover, when the victim forgives, should the society still punish the offender? What role do truth recovery, state tribute (paid to the victims) and monetary compensation play in finding the balance between punitive justice and restorative justice? This paper takes up these issues of justice and, while discussing certain aspects of the relationship between punitive justice and restorative justice in some processes of social (national) reconciliation, tries to present some answers.     

What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message?

The present article investigates the conditions under which vengeful episodes are satisfactory for the victim/avenger. Two hypotheses are tested simultaneously: (1) victims are satisfied if they see the offender suffer, even if this suffering was imposed by fate (“comparative suffering” hypothesis) and (2) victims are satisfied if the offender signals that he understands why revenge was imposed upon him (“understanding” hypothesis). A laboratory experiment is described in which the source of the offender’s suffering (revenge vs. fate) and the offender’s understanding for the cause of his suffering were varied. As an implicit measure of goal fulfillment, participants completed a lexical decision task that measured the relative accessibility of aggression-related words (compared to non-aggressive words). The results corroborate the understanding hypothesis: Participants showed higher levels of implicit goal fulfillment if they decided to take revenge and if the offender signaled understanding for the vengeful response. The findings are discussed with regard to the question what people hope to achieve when they take revenge.     

A COMPARISON OF GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS

The experiences of 44 group sexual assault victims (multiple offenders, one victim) were compared with 44 individual sexual assault victims (one offender, one victim). Sexual assaults included various degrees of sexual victimization ranging from verbal coercion to rape. Participants were located from among a national sample of 3,187 college women. Group sexual assaults, compared to individual sexual assaults, were in general more violent, involved greater resistance from the victims, and were more likely to be perpetrated by strangers or relatives and to involve an experience which met the legal definition of rape. Group sexual assaults were less likely to involve multiple episodes by the same offender(s). Group sexual assault victims were more likely than individual sexual assault victims to seek police and crisis services, to have contemplated suicide, and to have sought therapy postassault. Despite these differences, the two groups were similar in the amount of drinking and drug use during the assault and their scores on standardized measures of psychological symptoms.     

Three methods of developing MMPI taxonomies of sexual offenders

In a sample of 261 state hospital sexual offenders, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profiles did not differ for offenders with adult victims versus offenders with child victims when offender age was controlled. MMPI 2-point analyses for the whole sample revealed five common codes that were independent of victim maturity. The sample was randomly divided in half and subjected to a cluster-analytic procedure which revealed two MMPI clusters. The first cluster was unelevated, with Scale 4 as its high point. The second cluster had multiple elevations, with Scales 8, 4, 2, and 7 as the highest scales. These clusters were replicated in a cluster analysis of the second half of the sample. However, when the sample was recombined, the two clusters were not externally validated basis on demographic and criminological variables. The results suggest that common psychological variables among sexual offenders may have more discriminative value than victim maturity in developing sexual offender taxonomies.     

Retributive versus compensatory justice: Observers' preference for punishing in response to criminal offenses

In the current paper, the author examines whether independent observers of criminal offenses have a relative preference for either retributive justice (i.e., punishing the offender) or compensatory justice (i.e., compensating the victim for the harm done). In Study 1, results revealed that participants recommended higher sums of money if a financial transaction was framed as offender punishment (i.e., the offender would pay money to the victim) than if it was framed as victim compensation (i.e., the victim would receive money from the offender). In Study 2, participants were asked to gather information about court trials following three severe offenses to evaluate whether justice had been done in these cases. Results revealed that participants gathered more information about offender punishment than about victim compensation. In Study 3 these findings were extended by investigating whether observers' relative preference for punishing is moderated by emotional proximity to the victim. Results revealed that the relative preference for punishing only occurred among participants who did not experience emotional proximity to the victim. It is concluded that observers prefer retributive over compensatory justice, provided that they do not feel emotionally close to the victim. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.