自我损耗对利他惩罚的影响:愤怒与公正敏感性的作用

采用2个行为实验探讨了自我损耗对利他惩罚的影响。实验1采用“Stroop”任务操纵被试的自我损耗，并考察愤怒情绪在其中的中介作用；实验2使用公正敏感性量表选出高低两组被试后采用“划e”任务操纵被试的自我损耗。两个实验均用最后通牒博弈考察被试的利他惩罚行为。结果发现：高损耗组被试对不公平分配方案的拒绝比例显著高于低损耗组；愤怒情绪在两者间起部分中介作用；高公正敏感组中出现了明显了自我损耗促进效应，低公正敏感组不存在。证实了自我损耗对利他惩罚促进作用。     

公正世界信念与跨情境动机效应

采用2（公正世界信念状态：公正vs不公正）×2（中奖者的个性品质：正向vs负向）被试间实验设计,以在校大学生为被试,考察公正世界信念是否具有跨情境动机效应。结果发现：预先激活的公正世界信念状态迁移到了回忆不同个性品质中奖者奖金数额这个不同情境中,影响了人们的记忆。表明公正世界信念存在跨情境动机效应。     

分配不公正下的退缩行为：程序公正和互动公正的影响

以160名中学教师为被试,采用2×2的完全随机设计,以模拟故事（scenarios）的方法呈现刺激,研究了在职称评定中分配不公正的前提下,程序公正/不公正,互动公正/不公正对教师的退缩行为（消极怠工、拒绝帮助、离职、对校长的消极态度）的影响。结果表明,在分配不公正条件下：（1）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的消极怠工程度;（2）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的拒绝帮助行为程度,而且交互作用显著;（3）互动公正影响教师对上司的消极态度,程序公正无显著影响;（4）程序公正和互动公正对离职意愿影响均不显著     

观察者公正敏感性对不公正信息加工的影响

为考查观察者公正敏感性对不公正信息加工（注意、解释）的影响,该研究开展了两个实验研究。在实验一中,让被试观看不公正影片剪辑或中性剪辑后,要求他们完成视觉探测任务,判断探测刺激是在不公正词汇还是中性词汇的左边或右边;在实验二中,让被试对一个模糊的暗含不公正意义的影片剪辑中的主角进行公正性评价。结果表明,当被试不公正概念被激活后,观察者公正敏感性高的被试比观察者公正敏感性低的被试对不公正信息的注意加工更集中和更自动,同时他们对模糊的信息解释为更不公正。     

政策执行偏差情境下公众不公正感对集群行为的影响机制研究

摘 要：为探讨政策执行偏差情境下公众不公正感对公众集群行为的影响机制。采用问卷法对1756名社会公众进行调查,结果显示： （1）当局可责备性和愤怒情绪中介了公众不公正感对公众集群行为的影响。（2）公众不公正感还通过当局可责备性→愤怒情绪的中介链作用于公众的集群行为。     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

情绪和认知方式对个体建议采纳的影响*

通过电影诱发被试的情绪,利用两个实验探讨了情绪和认知方式对个体建议采纳的影响。实验一采用选择任务,实验二采用估计任务,研究发现:(1)愉快情绪状态下的被试建议采纳程度高于愤怒的被试,场依存型被试建议采纳程度高于场独立型被试,女性比起男性更易采纳他人建议;(2)在估计任务中,无论场依存者还是场独立者,在愤怒状态下建议采纳程度无显著差异,且均低于愉快状态下。     

程序公正及其心理机制

程序公正是组织公正的重要成分。自从Thibaut和Walker（1975）提出程序公正的概念以后,程序公正被引入了很多领域的研究,得到了极大的发展,但是程序公正的内容需要整合统一。发言权效应和尊重效应讨论了影响程序公正判断的因素,个人利益模型和团体价值模型则分析了其内在的心理机制。程序公正影响了大量与工作有关的态度和行为,并与分配结果产生了交互作用,其内在机制也在文章中得到了讨论。     

高确定性情绪（开心、愤怒）与低确定性情绪（悲伤）对信任的影响

本研究通过信任游戏的实验范式探讨了在与“受信任者”高/低可信赖性有关的信任线索时,具体情绪的确定性维度对信任行为的影响。实验一发现,当被试被告知“受信任者”在可信赖量表上的得分（高/低）时,个体在高确定性情绪（开心和愤怒）下的信任判断比低确定性情绪（悲伤）下的信任判断上更容易被受信任者的“可信赖性”水平的高低所影响;实验二发现,当告知被试“受信任者”的群体身份（内/外群）时,个体在高确定性情绪（开心和愤怒）下的信任判断比低确定性情绪（悲伤）下的信任判断更容易被受信任者的“内外群”身份所影响。上述结果表明,高确定性的情绪比低确定性的情绪更容易使被试的信任判断受到与“受信任者”是否值得信赖有关的线索所影响。     

阶段转移事件对公平稳定性的影响

摘要：目前,组织公平的研究多集中于组织公平与组织结果变量之间关系,较少关注组织公平的稳定性。本文采取4（公平模式：公平控制/初始公平/不公平控制/初始不公平）×2（实验阶段：阶段1/阶段2）混合实验设计,探讨阶段转移事件对被试公平反应稳定性的影响。研究结果显示,公平对待导致积极的公平反应,不公平对待导致消极的公平反应;公平程序向不公平程序的转移导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向的评价显著降低;而不公平程序向公平程序的转移并没有导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向评价的显著增加,从而说明了公平反应的有限稳定性。     

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。     

理性-经验加工对不公正情绪和行为反应的影响:公正敏感性的调节作用

基于认知-经验理论,采用行为实验法和情境故事法,探讨了不同信息加工方式对不公正情绪和行为反应的影响,以及受害者敏感性对两者关系的调节作用。结果表明,与理性加工相比,经验加工下个体对不公正有更强烈的负性情绪反应,合作意向更低;受害者敏感性调节加工方式与不公正行为反应之间的关系,即受害者敏感性低时,加工方式与人际公正对合作意向交互作用显著,受害者敏感性高时,加工方式与人际公正对合作意向没有交互作用。     

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual’s level of social identification with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identification promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These effects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an influence of identification and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.     

Procedural justice effects on self-esteem under certainty versus uncertainty emotions

Building upon the idea that procedural justice effects are more pronounced when uncertainty is high, we proposed that recall of an uncertainty-eliciting emotion (fear) will render people more responsive to variations in procedural justice than will recall of a certainty-eliciting emotion (disgust). Results from Study 1, (n = 79 undergraduate students) confirmed that a fair procedure (voice condition) enhanced self-esteem relative to an unfair procedure (no voice condition) to a greater extent when people recalled fear than when they recalled disgust. Results from Study 2 (n = 147 undergraduate students) also showed that a fair, relative to an unfair, procedure enhanced self-esteem more strongly when recalling the emotion of fear rather than disgust, but only when these emotions were recalled from a self-immersed than a self-distanced perspective. These findings confirm that discrete emotions that orient people to interpret situations in uncertain versus certain ways are important antecedents of procedural justice effects.     

Ease‐of‐retrieval effects on procedural justice judgements under conditions of informational and personal uncertainty

This study tests whether individuals' reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval processes when forming procedural justice judgements are moderated by informational and personal uncertainty. In Studies 1 and 2 we examined the predicted effects of informational uncertainty. Results indicated that participants in information‐uncertain conditions relied on ease‐of‐retrieval, whereas those in information‐certain conditions relied on content information to make procedural justice judgements. In Study 3 we examined the combined effects of informational uncertainty and personal uncertainty on reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval when forming procedural justice judgements. The findings of Study 3 indicated that personal uncertain participants who were in informational certain conditions based their procedural justice judgements on content information, whereas all other participants based their procedural justice judgements on ease‐of‐retrieval. This is the first paper to demonstrate that the joint effect of informational uncertainty and personal uncertainty on reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval is different from the two uncertainties acting alone.     

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership.     

When does procedural justice influence perceived legitimacy? The role of standing uncertainty and group identification

Many empirical studies have shown that procedural justice is the key determinant of whether an individual perceives an authority figure as legitimate. However, based on relational models of procedural justice and the uncertainty management model, there is reason to believe that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy may be stronger for individuals who are uncertain about their standing as group members (moderation); this interaction might predict group identification and, in turn, perceived legitimacy (mediation). We tested this mediated moderation model in two experiments (Studies 1a and 1b) and a field study (Study 2) using different operationalizations of standing uncertainty across studies. The results of Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy was stronger for participants with high (vs. low) standing uncertainty. Study 2 showed that group identification mediated the association between this interaction effect and perceived legitimacy. Together, the results of the mediated moderation analysis showed that procedural justice was positively associated with perceived legitimacy through high group identification when standing uncertainty was high. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings are discussed.     

Interactional justice and the fair process effect: The role of outcome uncertainty

This paper reconciles the inconsistent findings on the interactive effect of interactional justice and social comparison information on outcome evaluation. We distinguish two different effects of interactional justice and examine outcome uncertainty as a qualifying factor. Three hundred and fifty-seven undergraduates participated in a scenario experiment. It is found that, due to the functional quality effect, interactional justice significantly influences outcome evaluation, regardless of the social comparison information that is available, in situations of low outcome uncertainty. However, due to the fair process effect, interactional justice, as with procedural justice, interacts with social comparison information to influence outcome evaluation in situations of high outcome uncertainty. Implications for comparison referents and social comparison motives in social justice research are discussed.     

The Gender Heuristic and the Database: Factors Affecting the Perception of Gender-Related Differences in the Experience and Display of Emotions

Two studies investigated the conditions under which people use gender stereotypes about emotion to make judgments about the emotions of self and others. Participants in Study 1 either played or watched a competitive word game (actual game conditions), or imagined themselves playing or watching the same game (hypothetical condition). Participants actually involved in the game made emotion judgments either immediately after the game (online condition) or after a time delay (delayed condition). Both in terms of self-reports of emotional experience and perceptions of the emotional displays of others, gender-related stereotypes had a significant influence on judgments of participants in the hypothetical condition but had no significant influence on online judgments. Furthermore, participants rating their own emotional experiences (after a 1-week delay) exhibited responses consistent with gender stereotypes, whereas participants rating the emotional displays of others (after a 1-day delay) did not show a gender-stereotypic response pattern. Study 2 found that participants rating hypothetical others were more likely to employ gender-related stereotypes of emotion than participants rating themselves were. The results of both studies suggest that people tend to use an emotion-related gender heuristic when they lack a database of concrete situational experiences on which to base their judgments.