道歉还是补偿？修复策略对高、低权力受害方信任修复的影响

本研究通过两个实验分别在恰好和超额经济补偿条件下比较了道歉和经济补偿对高、低权力受害方信任修复的影响。实验首先通过角色分配法操纵被试(信任方)的权力感(高、低),然后要求其与受托方完成一定轮次的信任博弈,并且设置受托方在关键的轮次实施信任违背行为(不返还金钱)和信任修复行为(控制条件、道歉、经济补偿、道歉加补偿),最后测量高、低权力受害方在信任修复行为后的投资金额。结果发现：(1)在恰好补偿条件下,道歉对低权力受害方的信任修复效果更好,经济补偿对高权力受害方的信任修复效果更好;(2)在超额补偿条件下,无论对于高权力还是低权力受害方,经济补偿都比道歉的信任修复效果更好。     

组织信任修复的有效性：兼顾违背类型与修复策略的影响

已有关于信任修复的研究主要集中在正直和／或能力违背方面,关注特定信任修复策略的修复效果。本研究以修复机制划分修复策略,考察不信任的约束策略及信任的展示策略对于正直违背和善心违背的修复效果差异。以408名企业员工为被试,通过情景模拟法操作违背类型和修复策略,结果显示：组织信任的正直违背比善心违背破坏性更大,更难修复;约束策略对善心违背的修复效果显著高于对正直违背的修复效果;对正直违背来说,展示策略相对更有效。     

感知社会善念对信任修复的促进：社会距离与时间距离的调节作用

从信任修复的时间阶段模型来看,以往研究主要探讨了信任违背发生后的修复策略及效果,而鲜有研究从违背前的视角对此展开探索。为检验社会善念能否作为信任修复的‘事前’策略及其修复效果的边界条件,本研究采用Somi范式操纵违背方的社会善念,通过让信任方完成信任博弈游戏来考察其感知到的社会善念对信任修复的效果及社会距离与时间距离在其中发挥的调节作用。实验1结果表明,感知社会善念有助于促进受损信任的修复,感知高(vs.低)社会善念的被试修复效果更好;实验2发现社会距离调节了感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,面对社会距离远(vs.近)者的信任违背,感知到高社会善念的被试有更好的修复效果;实验3不仅再次验证了前两个实验的发现,还进一步发现时间距离调节了社会距离与感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,即当社会距离远的违背方回应时间距离短时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好,当社会距离近的违背方回应时间距离长时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好。由此可见,违背发生前信任方感知到违背方的社会善念能在一定程度上修复受损信任,但其效果受到社会距离与时间距离的制约。这些发现对未来探讨信任修复的事前策略及社会善念理论的应用均有一定启示意义。     

组织内信任与创造力的关系：元分析的证据

采用元分析技术探讨了组织内部水平信任、垂直信任和系统信任对创造力的影响。通过文献搜索纳入元分析的研究有85项, 共99个独立效应量。其中, 水平信任与创造力关系的元分析有41个独立样本, 垂直信任与创造力关系的元分析有34个独立样本, 系统信任与创造力关系的元分析有24个独立样本。元分析结果表明, 水平信任(r = 0.50)、垂直信任(r = 0.38)和系统信任(r = 0.48)与创造力之间存在显著正相关。水平信任、垂直信任、系统信任三者与创造力的关系受到信任测量工具的调节作用, 但是不受文化背景和知识水平的调节影响。     

情绪对信任的影响:来自元分析的证据

采用元分析方法探讨情绪对信任的影响。通过中英文献检索,共有21篇文章70个独立样本符合元分析标准（N=4745）。其中积极情绪对信任的影响有47个独立样本,消极情绪对信任的影响有23个独立样本。元分析的结果表明,相对于中性情绪,积极情绪对信任起到一定的促进作用,呈中等效应量（d=0.49）;消极情绪对信任起到一定的抑制作用,呈较小效应量（d=-0.23）。调节效应检验发现,情绪的诱发方式、信任对象熟悉性以及信任测量方式的调节作用均不显著。     

从信任违背到信任修复:道德情绪的作用机制

早期学者已经从认知的角度分析信任违背的原因及修复方式。近年来,情绪对信任修复的影响引起了重点关注,但是情绪在其中的作用机制并未得到解答。当前的研究主要从情绪影响信任的线索依赖效应和离散情绪(内疚、羞愧、愤怒、悲伤等)对信任修复的影响这两个角度着手研究情绪对信任修复的影响。通过文献梳理发现内疚和共情两种道德情绪是影响信任修复最重要的情绪因素:内疚能够促进受信方做出补偿行为,共情能够促进信任方宽恕他人。基于此构建了道德情绪的信任修复模型,并考虑了目标线索和信任方的特质性宽恕的调节作用。同时建议未来的研究进一步探讨其他离散情绪尤其是道德情绪对信任修复的作用,并关注情境与情绪的交互作用。     

儿童期创伤与共情的关系：一项三水平元分析

本研究运用三水平元分析技术系统探讨儿童期创伤与共情的关系及其调节因素。通过文献检索与筛选,获得46项研究和352个效应量,共包含23039名被试。元分析结果发现,儿童期创伤与共情存在显著负相关(r=-0.076)。儿童期创伤类型存在调节作用,躯体忽视(r=-0.095)与情感忽视(r=-0.128)均与共情显著负相关,而躯体虐待(r=0.005)、情感虐待(r=-0.051)和性虐待(r=-0.058)均与共情相关不显著。共情成分存在调节作用,在认知共情中,儿童期创伤与观点采择(r=-0.127)显著负相关,而与幻想(r=-0.044)相关不显著;在情感共情中,儿童期创伤与共情关注(r=-0.148)显著负相关,而与个人痛苦(r=0.153)显著正相关。本研究首次系统比较了不同类型儿童期创伤与共情的关系以及儿童期创伤在共情各成分上的效应,并提出了培养共情的建议。     

表扬对儿童内在动机影响的元分析

以儿童为被试群体,运用元分析的方法对表扬和内在动机的关系进行探讨。通过中英文献检索,共有16篇文献30个独立样本符合元分析标准(N=2339)。元分析的结果表明,表扬与动机、坚持性和自我评价成分皆呈现正向中等效应量,表扬对儿童内在动机具有促进作用。调节效应检验发现,年龄对表扬-坚持性和表扬-自我评价成分不具有显著调节作用,性别(男生比)对表扬-坚持性和表扬-自我评价成分不具有显著调节作用,文化背景对表扬-坚持性具有更显著的预测性,表现为西方文化背景下高于东方。     

中国学生英语语音意识与英语阅读成绩关系的元分析

运用元分析的方法对中国学生英语语音意识与英语阅读成绩之间的关系进行探讨。经筛选,共有53项英语语音意识与英语阅读成绩的相关研究符合本研究元分析标准(n=4576)。结果表明:(1)中国学生英语语音意识与英语阅读成绩呈正向中等相关r=0.36, 95%CI [0.33, 0.39];(2)被试年级对于语音意识与阅读成绩关系的调节作用显著,并且随着年级的变化而变化;(3)语音意识各成分对阅读成绩具有显著的调节作用,其中音位意识的调节作用最为显著,音节意识的调节作用最小;(4)阅读材料类型对语音意识与阅读成绩相关性具有显著的调节作用,阅读材料类型中单词阅读对语音意识与阅读成绩相关性的调节作用最大,而短语/短句阅读的调节作用最小。     

小学生思维能力的培养:五年追踪研究

采用聚合交叉设计,以"学思维"活动课为实验材料,对某小学3个年级164名学生的思维能力进行了四年的培养,并考察了实验效果及延迟效应。结果表明:(1)实验组学生思维能力总体水平及发展的上升速度显著快于控制组学生;(2)实验组学生在归纳推理、演绎推理、空间认知、类比推理和抽象概括能力上显著高于控制组学生,且除了抽象概括能力,其他四项能力的上升速度显著快于控制组学生;(3)延迟效应显著。     

Influence of Peers’ Types of Trust on Trust Repair: The Role of Apologies

This study aims to answer the question how previous trust experiences contextualize trust repair efforts. The concepts of calculus-based and relational trust are utilized to show the influence of the kind of trust on trust repair tactics, specifically apologies. We focus on a neglected referent of trust, that is trust between peers, and elucidate apology and its complements that might be effective between peers. We propose that the effectiveness of apologies and its specific complements depend not only on trust breach but also on the type of trust prior to a breach. Specifically, we claim that when apology is complemented with compensation or external attributions, these tactics repair trust more effectively in calculus-based trust. But, when apology is complemented with empathy, acknowledgment of violated norms, and extensive involvement, these tactics can effectively repair trust in relational trust. The paper aims to contribute to our understanding of apologies and the effectiveness of it under different conditions.     

Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations

Two studies were conducted to examine the implications of an apology versus a denial for repairing trust after an alleged violation. Results reveal that trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties (a) apologized for violations concerning matters of competence but denied culpability for violations concerning matters of integrity, and (b) had apologized for violations when there was subsequent evidence of guilt but had denied culpability for violations when there was subsequent evidence of innocence. Supplementary analyses also revealed that the interactive effects of violation type and violation response on participants' trusting intentions were mediated by their trusting beliefs. Combined, these findings provide needed insight and supporting evidence concerning how trust might be repaired in the aftermath of a violation.     

Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations

Prior research on responses to trust violations has focused primarily on the effects of apology and denial. The authors extended this research by studying another type of verbal response that is often used to respond to trust violations but has not been considered in the trust literature: reticence. An accused party may use reticence in a sincere and even legitimate attempt to persuade a trustor to withhold judgment. Yet, by considering information diagnosticity and belief formation mechanisms through which verbal responses influence trust, the authors argue that reticence is a suboptimal response because it combines the least effective elements of apology and denial. Specifically, reticence is a suboptimal response to an integrity violation because, like apology, it fails to address guilt. And reticence is a suboptimal response to a competence violation because, like denial, it fails to signal redemption. Results from 2 laboratory studies, simulating different contexts and using research participants from 2 different countries, provide support for the prediction. The results offer important implications for those who might use reticence to respond to a perceived trust violation and also for those who must judge another's reticence.     

Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups

This study incorporates insights from research on group decision-making and trust repair to investigate the differences that arise when alleged transgressors attempt to regain the trust of groups as compared to individuals. Results indicate that repairing trust is generally more difficult with groups than individuals, and both groups and individuals were less trusting when trustees denied culpability (rather than apologized) for a competence-based violation or apologized (rather than denied culpability) for an integrity-based violation. However, the interaction of violation-type and violation-response also ultimately affected the relative difficulty of repairing trust with groups vs. individuals, with the greater harshness of groups dissipating when the transgressors’ responses were effectively matched with the type of violation. Persuasive argumentation rather than normative pressure, furthermore, mediated these differences. Thus, the sequencing of individual vs. group assessments mattered, such that subsequent group assessments affected initial individual assessments but not the reverse.     

When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation

This study examines the trust repair implications of apologizing with an internal vs. external attribution after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. By considering theory regarding differences in the perceived diagnosticity of information about competence vs. integrity, we note that the conditions where external attributions would be more necessary for mitigating one’s blame are precisely the conditions where such external attributions are less likely to be believed. Moreover, empirical studies that have compared the relative benefits of external and internal attributions for repairing trust have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the response that should be used. We asked 189 college students to respond to videotaped scenarios in which they were asked to play the role of a manager and make decisions about hiring an accountant who had misfiled a tax return with a prior employer. Each participant was presented with one of four scenarios, which differed with respect to the type of violation (competence vs. integrity) and type of response (apology-internal vs. apology-external). The results revealed a significant interaction whereby trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties apologized with an internal, rather than external, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of competence, but apologized with an external, rather than internal, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of integrity. These findings suggest that being guilty of an integrity-based violation can be so detrimental for trust that any mitigating response, even one that perceivers are likely to question, may prove worthwhile.     

THE IMPACT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH ON WORK-RELATED OUTCOMES: A META-ANALYSIS

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the influence of psychological contract breach on 8 work-related outcomes. Breach was related to all outcomes except actual turnover. Based on affective events theory, we developed a causal model integrating breach, affect (violation and mistrust), attitude (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions), and individual effectiveness (actual turnover, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role performance). Structural equation modeling was used to test the model. The results indicated that affect mediates the effect of breach on attitude and individual effectiveness. Two moderators were also examined including the type of breach measure (global vs. composite) and the content of the psychological contract breach (transactional vs. relational). Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

元回归中效应量的最小个数需求：基于统计功效和估计精度

元回归模型被广泛应用于调节变量的识别。从元分析技术的原理谈起, 介绍了元回归模型, 然后采用蒙特卡洛模拟, 基于统计功效和估计精度探究效应量个数对元回归模型参数估计的影响, 从而确立效应量的最小个数需求。主要研究结果为：(1) Wald-type z检验方法在元回归中易犯I类错误; (2)为达到参数估计要求, 元回归至少需要20个效应量; (3)纳入合适的调节变量能降低对效应量的个数需求。基于研究结果, 提出以下建议：(1)研究者应慎重使用Wald-type z检验方法和CMA软件; (2)研究者至少需要20个效应量, 且应当根据实际情况进一步增加效应量个数; (3)研究者应当积极探索合适的调节变量; (4)未来审稿人可参考最小效应量个数需求对元回归研究进行质量评估。