风险情景中参照点与管理者认知特征

采用问卷测量的方法探讨风险情景以及个性特征对个体风险倾向的影响。结果显示：(1)成就动机的两个成分,即争取成功与回避失败能够分别预测个体在风险情景中的风险倾向与认知特征;争取成功动机对预测个体机会认知更敏感,而回避失败动机对预测威胁认知更有效。(2)回避失败动机是区分个体风险倾向的关键变量,个体在风险情景中的风险倾向取决于个体回避失败动机的强弱。(3)实验证实了当以“成功”为参照点时,回避失败倾向低的个体,在获益情景中更冒险而在损失情景中更保守;相反,回避失败倾向高的个体,在损失情景中更冒险而在获益情景中更保守。研究表明,结合人格和情景两类变量探讨个体风险倾向的反应模式能够更准确地描述个体行为倾向及其认知特征。这一结论提供了一个可能的思路来解释P理论与刻板模式之间的争执。另外,企业与学生样本在数据的总体趋势上存在相当多的一致性,但在细节上仍然存在差异,因此以学生样本数据进行推论时须要特别谨慎。     

自我肯定方式降低高威胁后的消极情绪

通过两个研究考察肯定内部核心品质和肯定外部成就两种不同自我肯定方式对威胁后个体的影响。研究1发现,无论高威胁还是低威胁情境下,选择内部自我肯定的被试均显著多于选择外部自我肯定的被试。研究2发现,内部自我肯定能够在边缘显著水平上降低高威胁感知被试的自我消极情绪,并能够显著降低高威胁感知被试的一般消极情绪,而外部自我肯定不能达到相似效果。上述结果表明,无论在高威胁还是低威胁情境下,个体都更倾向于选择内部自我肯定;与外部自我肯定相比,内部自我肯定对降低个体高威胁情境下的消极情绪有积极作用。     

再分配偏向的心理机制及其对共同富裕的启示

再分配偏向是指人们对再分配的支持或倾向程度。其心理机制,一直是该领域关注的焦点。为此,研究者提出了三种理论视角。自利动机视角认为个体的再分配偏向受到经济自利动机的驱动。公平认知视角认为个体的再分配偏向受到公平认知或信念的影响。社会抽样视角认为社会抽样偏差也会影响再分配偏向。未来可以进行不同视角的整合、探索其他心理机制、关注政治行为后效,并更多发挥再分配偏向研究在推进共同富裕中的作用。     

行为决策中的比率偏差

比率偏差是指小概率事件以不同比率形式呈现时,人们倾向于认为以较小数字呈现的事件更不可能发生.这种现象在医疗卫生领域和职业生涯决策中有重要的应用价值.目前关于比率偏差产生的解释主要包括标准理论与认知经验自我理论.比率偏差的影响因素主要包括元认知技能、计算能力、认知视角和任务性质等.未来的研究需要从比率偏差现象的产生、心理机制及应用方面进行深入研究.     

学前儿童“朴素生物学理论”发展的实验研究──对“生长”现象的认知发展

从学前儿童对生物生长现象的认知入手探查了学前儿童朴素生物学理论的发展,探查了发展中的个别差异和个体内部差异。研究发现：（１）学前儿童在生长维度上逐渐形成了朴素生物学理论;（２）不同教育条件下的儿童对生长的认知存在差异;学前早期儿童的认知成绩更多地受实验任务变式的影响,而学前晚期儿童的个体内部差异则较小。     

目标追求过程中的权力效应

权力在心理学中被定义为一种对他人施加影响的能力。理论和实证研究都表明, 个体在目标追求的过程中, 个体权力感的高低对个体的目标追求的认知过程和行为结果都会产生影响。具体表现为在认知加工方面, 高权力者的信息加工抽象程度更高, 注意保持和分配能力也更好; 在行为结果上, 高权力者能更果断地设定目标、目标追求的行动力也更强。在权力和目标追求关系中, 预期自我调节的倾向类型起到中介作用。     

成就动机与机会-威胁认知

采用问卷法探讨 3类变量即成就动机、风险情景中的冒险倾向以及对风险情景的机会 -威胁认知的关系。结果发现相对争取成功动机而言 ,回避失败动机对预测个体的机会 -威胁认知状况更为敏感 ;研究也显示 ,高成就动机组是以强烈的争取成功的倾向导致其对机会的积极认知 ;低成就动机组则是以对失败回避的趋力强化了威胁认知。个体在风险情景中的行为倾向与认知反应显得更为复杂。首先 ,框架效应不是普遍但的确存在于某类风险情景中 ,方差分析证实风险情景与框架间的交互作用达到显著性水平 ,这说明被试保守倾向的反应受到情景与框架效应的交互影响 ;其次 ,风险情景即“获益”和“损失”极大地影响着被试的风险反应模式     

生成与动力:具身认知研究中的互动观

从方法论上讲,认知研究中的个体主义把研究的焦点放在个体身上,倾向于从个体内部寻求对社会行为的解释。与个体主义取向不同的是,具身认知中的互动观更注重人际和社会互动对于理解他人的重要作用。心理学中的生态学方法最早关注了环境与有机体之间的互动对知觉产生的影响。生成认知在此基础上更进一步,认为互动不仅发生在有机体与环境之间,而且表现为主体与主体的交互影响,两个主体间的交互不是两个笛卡尔式心灵的对话,交互的主体是身体,是一种“肉身间性”的过程。具身认知研究中的互动观强调身心一体论,反对身心二元论,在方法论上表现出反还原论的特色。     

系统合理化何以形成——三种不同的解释视角

系统合理化理论认为, 人们会自然地将其所在的社会系统感知为公平合理的, 这一倾向即系统合理化。而系统合理化形成之原因, 一直是该领域理论和研究关注的重点。为此, 研究者先后提出了三种解释思路。认知失调视角认为, 系统合理化之所以产生是因为个体想要缓解因系统无法满足他们的需求而产生的焦虑。补偿性控制视角认为, 系统合理化源于个体自身控制感的缺乏。社会认知视角则认为人们固有的认知倾向特别是对于社会经济差异的内归因倾向是造成系统合理化的根源。未来可以考虑在同一个研究中包含来自于不同理论视角的解释变量, 借鉴相近领域的发现探索其他可能存在的系统合理化的形成机制, 探究中国文化特有的系统合理化的来源, 同时对积极的合理化与消极的合理化作出区分, 并在此基础上针对社会现实问题加强应用研究的开展。     

最心安处是吾乡：本体安全感威胁对家乡品牌偏好的影响

全球化进程的加快和贸易战的发生让人们处于一种本体不安全的状态中, 即人们的本体安全感受到了威胁。本文研究了消费者本体安全感威胁对家乡品牌偏好的影响。三项研究的结果表明, 相比本体安全感没有受到威胁的个体, 本体安全感受到威胁的个体对家乡品牌的偏好度更高, 其中家乡依恋起到了中介作用。具体而言, 本体安全感受到威胁的个体更倾向于依恋可以提供常规生活和构建个人身份的家乡, 以此寻求本体安全感恢复, 从而增加了对家乡品牌的偏好。实验结果还发现, 自然栖息地情境展露在本体安全感威胁对家乡品牌偏好的作用中起到调节作用。具体而言, 当展露于自然栖息地情境时, 本体安全感受到威胁的个体能够通过对自然栖息地这一更广泛的地点依恋来对抗本体安全感威胁, 不再需要寻求家乡依恋来缓解本体安全感威胁, 从而使其在对家乡品牌和非家乡品牌的偏好上不再呈现出差异。本研究的发现丰富了现有本体安全感和品牌偏好的相关研究, 为品牌提供了一种新的本土营销策略, 具有丰富的理论贡献和管理启示。     

The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks

We predict that people with different political orientations will exhibit systematically different levels of political homophily, the tendency to associate with others similar to oneself in political ideology. Research on personality differences across the political spectrum finds that both more conservative and more politically extreme individuals tend to exhibit greater orientations towards cognitive stability, clarity, and familiarity. We reason that such a “preference for certainty” may make these individuals more inclined to seek out the company of those who reaffirm, rather than challenge, their views. Since survey studies of political homophily face well‐documented methodological challenges, we instead test this proposition on a large sample of politically engaged users of the social‐networking platform Twitter, whose ideologies we infer from the politicians and policy nonprofits they follow. As predicted, we find that both more extreme and more conservative individuals tend to be more homophilous than more liberal and more moderate ones.     

Causal attribution and self-justification as explanations for the consensus expectation of one's social value orientation

This study focuses on explanations for the perceived consensus of one's own social value orientation. The prediction of the triangle hypothesis that the consensus expectation of individualistic and competitive people is higher than that of cooperative people was partially supported. Only individualists expected their own orientation more frequently of other people. According to a causal attribution explanation, it was expected that subjects' causal attributions for their own orientation to internal and external causes influenced their consensus expectations. Only attributions to internal causes differed significantly between subjects with different orientations and corresponded with their consensus estimates. Individualism was attributed least internally, cooperation most internally, and competition in between. Additionally, direct support for the effect of internal attributions on consensus expectations was found. Compared with subjects who attributed their own orientation more internally, subjects who attributed it less internally were more likely to expect their own orientation among other people. According to a self-justification explanation, it was hypothesized that the consensus expectations of individualists and competitors would be higher when first their own social orientation was assessed and then the orientation they expected to predominate among others than in the reversed order. This hypothesis was not supported.     

Internal,external, genetic,or cultural? Lay theories about racial health disparities predict perceived threat,adherence, and policy support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that Black and Latinx communities experienced a disproportionate burden of illness. The goal of this study is to investigate laypeople's attribution of these disparities. We hypothesized the following four potential attributions: external causes (e.g. systemic racism), internal causes (e.g. personal choices), cultural causes (e.g., being close knit), or genetic causes (e.g., being more vulnerable for genetic reasons). Data from 447 participants revealed that lay theories involving external factors were the most endorsed, whereas theories relating to genetic causes were the least endorsed. Our analyses further revealed that external attributions predicted broader COVID-19 relevant outcomes (i.e., perceived threat of COVID-19, adherence to CDC guidelines, and support for government policies in response to COVID-19), even after controlling for political orientation, participant race, and other attributions. This research provides insight into how lay people's explanations for disparities can predict their reactions to the pandemic.     

Are Conservatives Less Likely to be Prosocial Than Liberals? From Games to Ideology,Political Preferences and Voting

Do political preferences reflect individual differences in interpersonal orientations? Are conservatives less other‐regarding than liberals? On the basis of past theorising, we hypothesised that, relative to individuals with prosocial orientations, those with individualistic and competitive orientations should be more likely to endorse conservative political preferences and vote for conservative parties. This hypothesis was supported in three independent studies conducted in Italy (Studies 1 and 2) and the Netherlands (Study 3). Consistent with hypotheses, a cross‐sectional study revealed that individualists and competitors endorsed stronger conservative political preferences than did prosocials; moreover, this effect was independent of the association between need for structure and conservative political preferences (Study 1). The predicted association of social value orientation and voting was observed in both a four‐week (Study 2) and an eight‐month (Study 3) longitudinal study. Taken together, the findings provide novel support for the claim that interpersonal orientations, as measured with experimental games rooted in game theory, are important to understanding differences in ideology at the societal level. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Going to political extremes in response to boredom

Boredom makes people attempt to re‐establish a sense of meaningfulness. Political ideologies, and in particular the adherence to left‐ versus right‐wing beliefs, can serve as a source of meaning. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that boredom is associated with a stronger adherence to left‐ versus right‐wing beliefs, resulting in more extreme political orientations. Study 1 demonstrates that experimentally induced boredom leads to more extreme political orientations. Study 2 indicates that people who become easily bored with their environment adhere to more extreme ends of a political spectrum compared with their less easily bored counterparts. Finally, Study 3 reveals that the relatively extreme political orientations among those who are easily bored can be attributed to their enhanced search for meaning. Overall, our research suggests that extreme political orientations are, in part, a function of boredom's existential qualities.     

Me, us, or them: who is more conformist? Perception of conformity and political orientation

Research has shown that people perceive others as more vulnerable than themselves to media communication, and their political out-group as more vulnerable than their political in-group. In the present study, the authors predicted that the same two biases would appear with respect to another kind of influence--conformity--but that participants' judgments would display a different pattern according to their political orientations. Right-wing and left-wing university students were asked to evaluate conformity and to estimate how conformist they, their political in-group, their political out-group, and other groups are. As hypothesized, right-wingers expressed more ambivalence toward conformity and viewed it less negatively than did left-wingers. Political orientation had no impact on the discrepancy between self and others, but it did moderate the in-group-out-group discrepancy.     

Do Psychotherapists with Different Theoretical Orientations Stereotype or Prejudge Each Other?

This study investigates a possible threat to the progress of psychotherapy. It aims to detect and compare stereotyped or even prejudiced views among psychotherapists of different theoretical orientations, building on social psychological theory of in-groups and out-groups. Swedish psychotherapists (n = 416) of four different orientations (psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioural, or integrative/eclectic) used the valuable elements in psychotherapy questionnaire to rate the importance of various elements in psychotherapy. They also estimated how therapists of other orientations would rate these elements. These estimates were then compared with therapists’ actual self-ratings in order to detect patterns of stereotyping or prejudiced views. Psychotherapists exaggerate the differences between their own and other orientations in a stereotyped way, but correctly predict what members of their own orientation (in-group) find important. However, they overestimate how important ‘orientation-typical features’ are to those of other orientations (out-group), indicating a clear tendency to stereotype. Overall, integrative/eclectic therapists’ estimates were less stereotyped than the estimates of therapists of other orientations. A somewhat unexpected finding was that cognitive and behavioural therapists seem more inclined towards stereotyping. The stereotyped views of other theoretical orientations among psychotherapists can be argued to have negative connotations and may thus be seen as prejudices. These prejudices could create irrational and unnecessary obstacles to the development of both the science and the practice of psychotherapy and signal the need for psychotherapists of all orientations to develop a more balanced picture of each other.     

Interpersonal politics: the role of terror management and attachment processes in shaping political preferences

Research on terror management theory (TMT) indicates that reminders of death affect political attitudes, but political orientation only sometimes moderates these effects. We propose that secure relationships are associated with values of tolerance and compassion, thus orienting people toward liberalism; insecure attachments are associated with more rigid and absolutist values that orient people toward conservatism. Given that attachment relationships become especially active when security needs are heightened, we predicted that mortality salience would be an important factor in understanding the relationship between attachment processes and political orientation. Supporting these ideas, Study 1 showed that after a mortality-salience manipulation, securely attached participants increased their support for a liberal presidential candidate, and less securely attached participants increased their support for a conservative presidential candidate. In Study 2, a secure-relationship prime following a mortality-salience manipulation engendered a less violent approach to the problem of terrorism than did a neutral-relationship prime. We discuss the interaction of TMT processes and individual differences in attachment in shaping political preferences.     

Judging scandal: Standards or bias in politics

As the number of political scandals rises, we examined the circumstances that might influence how a politician would be judged as a result of a scandal. Specifically, we hypothesized that ingroup bias theory and shifting standards theory would produce different patterns of judgements. In two studies, we found support for the ingroup bias theory, such that participants rated the fictitious politician’s public approval and perceived character as higher if the politician was a member of their own political party (i.e. their ingroup) than if the politician was a member of the another political party (i.e. their outgroup). These results may explain, in part, why people may judge politicians involved in scandal more or less harshly depending on whether they are an ingroup member or outgroup member.     

Student Political Campaigners: Who Campaigns and What Effect Does It Have on Them?

What characterizes students who become involved in political campaigns and what effects does their campaigning have on them? During a 2-week election recess, about one-third of the students at Princeton University chose to campaign. Those students who did so were liberal rather than radical in their political orientation. Those who participated seemed predisposed to campaign because they thought campaigning was an effective way of bringing about the changes that they sought. Campaigners were more likely than their fellow students to have engaged in political activity before. Such efforts may be evidence of their beliefs that political activity causes change, or might have been the forming experience for those beliefs. If the candidate for whom the student campaigned won the election, the student by and large strengthened or maintained his original attitudes about the efficacy of campaigning. If his candidate lost, the student became more pessimistic about the efficacy of campaigners whose candidates won also changed in an internal direction on a personal-control subscale of Rotter's (1966) internal-external scale; those whose candidates lost tended to change in an external direction.