程序公正、不确定性对公共政策可接受性的影响:情感信任、认知信任的中介作用

为了研究程序公正、不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间的关系,并进一步考察情感信任和认知信任在其中的中介效应,本研究选取公共政策领域,通过问卷调查的方法随机选取510名北京市民进行研究。研究发现,程序公正与公共政策可接受性正相关,不确定性与公共政策可接受性负相关,情感信任中介程序公正与公共政策可接受性,并对不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间有遮掩效应,而认知信任不存在显著的中介作用。     

社会公正与政治信任：民众对政府的合作行为机制

胡锦涛在中共十八大上提出：必须坚持维护社会公平正义。对社会公正的认知直接决定着民众的政治信任, 进而影响民众对政府的合作。近年来频发的群体性事件即是非合作行为的典型表征。然而, 国内外研究中至今没有直接探讨社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的实证支持, 更无法进一步揭示其作用于合作行为的过程和条件。鉴于此, 本研究将社会公正分为分配公正和程序公正, 将政治信任分为工具信任和情感信任, 采用实验室研究、现场研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法, 探讨社会公正对合作行为的过程机制, 建立其通过工具信任和情感信任作用于合作行为的双路径模型; 并进一步分析结果依赖性对这一路径模型的调节作用。本研究有望提出社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的双路径模型及其调节变量, 一方面在理论上深化和拓展本领域的研究, 另一方面实践中通过提升公正感、强化过程变量(政治信任)、干预调节变量(结果依赖性)等策略促进合作行为。     

公共政策制定程序对政策可接受性的影响

根据程序公正理论提出公共政策制定程序与公众对政策的可接受性的关系问题。研究一通过访谈不同领域的学者,初步揭示了公共政策及其制定程序存在的问题——对公共问题不敏感,解决问题的措施成效低。研究二用问卷调查公众对一个制定中的公共政策的态度,恰与政策制定者的愿望相反,公众并不认可政府解决问题的设想,也不认同政府举行的听证会的结果。研究三设计了一个非等组前后测准实验,在两个互联网站的电子公告板上比较根据不同的公共政策制定程序的政策的可接受性。结果证明,制定政策时了解公众态度可增强政策的针对性,提高解决问题措施的成效和可接受性     

社会公正对权威合法性的影响:社会阶层的调节作用

社会层面中的权威合法性研究是国内外学者和管理实践者近来关注的重要问题。而社会公正的两个维度——分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性的交互作用的结果并不一致。本研究基于解释水平理论,提出社会阶层能调节分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性感知的交互作用,并通过实验室研究和情境启动两种方法进行验证。结果发现对低阶层者来说,无论是否程序公正,分配公正能显著提高个体的权威合法性感知;在分配公正和多得不公条件下,程序公正显著降低权威合法性感知。对高阶层者来说,分配公正能显著提高程序公正时的权威合法性感知;程序公正能显著提高分配公正时的权威合法性感知。研究结果启示社会管理者在推行依法治国时应针对不同阶层民众的思维方式采取管理策略。     

社会困境下政治信任对公众态度和合作行为的影响

现代社会面临的重要问题是如何有效地促进人们之间的相互合作,达到社会公共利益的最大化。因此,有关社会困境(social dilemma)的研究成为社会心理学领域的热点。随着群体理论的发展,研究者的研究视角逐渐从个体(individual)转向群体(collective),关注层级结构的群体(hierarchical groups)中,管理者或管理机构(权威)的特征和行为对个体合作行为的影响。其中,权威信任(trust in authority)和公正感(fairness)是影响个体态度和合作行为的重要变量。政治信任(political trust)也可以看作权威信任的一种,即在社会背景下,公众对社会管理权威(政府机构)的信任。未来研究应尝试在实验室里对政治信任的作用和机制进行探究,并进一步探究公正感在政治信任对态度及合作行为关系中的中介作用。     

SARS危机中以受众为中心的风险沟通分析

采用问卷调查的方法,通过探讨信任和社会心理支持两个主要因素的效应,分析“以受众为中心的风险沟通”方式在SARS危机中的表征。结果发现,SARS期间民众通过大众渠道、专门渠道和人际渠道获得信息,并以风险信息的“焦点渐进知觉模式”知觉信息;民众对政府和专家具备基本的信任;我国民众的社会心理支持体系可区分为情感型和权威型,两种类型对个体有不同的意义。通过整合上述特征,可形成有效的“以受众为中心的风险沟通”方式。     

互动公正对员工绩效与主管承诺的影响及其机制

采用问卷调查法和结构方程建模技术探讨互动公正对员工绩效与主管承诺的影响及其机制。通过分析215份员工和其直接主管的配对数据,结果发现：(1)互动公正通过主管认知信任的部分中介作用正向影响员工的任务绩效,即一方面直接影响员工的任务绩效,另一方面通过认知信任间接影响员工的任务绩效;(2)互动公正通过主管情感信任的完全中介作用正向影响员工的进谏行为;(3)互动公正通过主管认知信任和情感信任的完全中介作用正向影响员工的主管承诺。     

差序政府信任：概念、现状及成因*--基于三次全国调查数据的实证研究

本研究在2002、2008、2011年亚洲民主调查数据的基础上探讨了差序政府信任的概念、现状以及其影响因素。研究发现：差序政府信任受到信息、文化以及政治接触等因素的共同影响。我国半开放式的媒体环境、适度而非绝对的权威取向文化环境以及民众对于基层政府在公共服务上的不满和基层民主参与的匮乏共同催生、强化了差序政府信任现象。     

初中生的社会比较对认知与情感信任的影响

本研究旨在探讨不同友谊状态下,初中生的社会比较对认知与情感信任的影响,及两种信任在社会比较与亲密度变化关系中的中介作用。有效被试为522名(M=12.87岁, SD=0.67),开学初让被试提名一位最亲密朋友,期中考试后让其比较与该好友的成绩排名并评价对好友的认知与情感信任水平,随后重新评价该好友的亲密度。结果表明:在亲密朋友(第二次依旧为最亲密的朋友)中,向下比较的情感信任高于向上比较,社会比较不影响认知信任;在普通朋友(第二次亲密度降低的朋友)中,向上比较的认知和情感信任均高于向下比较;社会比较只通过认知信任影响亲密度变化(完全中介),即相比于向下比较,向上比较时的认知信任水平较高,从而更有利于维持友谊的亲密性。     

员工创新行为源于领导情感信任吗?风险倾向与组织行为授权的调节作用

领导情感信任会促进员工表现创新行为,但员工个体的风险倾向与组织行为授权可能对其具有调节作用。结果显示（1）领导情感信任能正向预测员工创新行为;（2）领导情感信任、组织行为授权与风险倾向对员工创新行为预测存在三维交互作用,相对于其他条件,组织行为授权和风险倾向均处于高水平条件下,领导情感信任与员工创新行为的正相关程度更为明显。探讨领导情感信任、组织行为授权、风险倾向与员工创新行为的关系可以为甄别影响员工创新行为的个体和环境因素提供理论指导,此外,也可为企业和直接领导如何增加员工创新行为提供借鉴。     

社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向

社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任,并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平,将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任,采用实验室情境设计的方法,引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式,通过2个实验系统探讨"公正无私,一言而万民齐"的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向,在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型:外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任,进而触发公共合作;内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任,进而触发公共合作;二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。     

Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions

Three studies examined the effects of perceived procedural justice and the favorability of a group-level outcome on the endorsement of a group-level decision and the evaluation of the authority responsible for the decision. Results showed that, contrary to findings usually seen with individual-level decisions, collective outcome favorability was more important than procedural justice in influencing the endorsement of the decision. Furthermore, increased identification with the group reduced the importance of procedural justice but accentuated the importance of collective outcome favorability. With regard to the evaluation of the authority, the results were similar to those obtained in individual-level decisions: Procedural fairness mattered more than collective outcome favorability.     

Explaining the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship: Relying on relational concern or instrumental concern?

People can extract relational information (i.e., relational concern) as well as instrumental information (i.e., instrumental concern) from decision‐making procedures. Thus, both instrumental and relational concerns are assumed to influence the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Drawing from social exchange theory, the different kinds of concerns may lead to form different exchange relationships (social exchange relationship vs. economic relationship), which can be indicated by two forms of trust (affect‐based trust vs. cognition‐based trust). We built a model of trust mediation in which procedural justice predicted affect‐based and cognition‐based trust. Further, we also tested the hypothesis that high (compared with low) group identification individuals are more likely to rely on relational concern to construct procedural justice and judge legitimacy of authority, because they use procedural fairness information to infer the quality of their relationships with the authority. The results of an experiment (Study 1) demonstrated that both affect‐based trust and cognition‐based trust mediated the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Moreover, a field study (Study 2) showed that affect‐based trust mediated the relationship between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy primarily among individuals with high group identification whereas cognition‐based trust mediated this relationship primarily among those with low group identification.     

Outcome favorability as a boundary condition to voice effect on people's reactions to public policymaking

Regarding people's reactions to public policymaking, an organizational justice framework has been introduced. Although these studies showed a link between fairness perceptions and attitudes toward public policy and authority, results concerning more behavioral consequences and the moderation of outcome favorability are less clear. The present research explored the voice effect on people's reactions to public policymaking, as well as outcome favorability as a boundary condition to it. Two different settings and use of different designs (a scenario and an experiment) yielded convergent results that people's reactions to public policymaking were more favorable when they had voice than they did not and outcome favorability moderated the voice effect. More precisely, the voice effect was stronger when the outcome was unfavorable than favorable.     

The relationships between justice perceptions, trust, and employee attitudes in a downsized organization

The authors examined perceptions of distributive justice, procedural justice, trust, organizational commitment, organizational satisfaction, and turnover intentions among survivors in an organization that had recently completed an organizational downsizing. Results suggested that trust partially mediated the relationship between distributive justice and both organizational satisfaction and affective commitment. Additionally, the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intentions was mediated by trust perceptions.     

The Role of Leader Morality in the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability

The present research explored the role of leader morality in the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability, and attempted to connect justice and morality construct in a new direction. Two studies in different settings and using different designs (a scenario experiment and a survey) yielded convergent results. When leader morality was high, the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability was significant, and fair procedures mitigated the negative effect of low outcome favorability. When leader morality was low, however, the interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability was absent.