行为的跨情境一致性及人格与行为的关系——对人格内涵及其中西方差异的理论与实证分析

旨在对行为的跨情境一致性和人格的内涵等问题进行跨文化的理论和实证分析。人格内容被划分为4个层次,包括个体的外显行为、内心体验、动机和神经生理基础等,文化对人格的不同内容都会产生一定的影响。同时,不同情境下的行为由于受到来自个体内部不同动机（自我统一性动机与适应环境要求的动机）的影响而出现跨情境的一致或不一致。文中从理论和实证角度对上述问题进行了分析,并提出了进一步研究的方向     

运动行为领域中的调节匹配

调节匹配理论认为个体更倾向于采用与自身调节定向方式相匹配的行为策略, 并且当个体处于调节匹配状态时, 其行为表现会更好。通过梳理近年来运动领域关于调节匹配的研究发现, 调节匹配可以对运动行为的多个方面产生影响, 如促进运动员的运动表现、提高运动员的决策效能、增强体育锻炼参与度等。未来研究应注重对运动中调节匹配研究内容的扩充, 探讨调节匹配的内在机制, 并完善调节匹配的研究方法。     

“12345”市民热线承办人员胜任力模型构建

对胜任力的研究有助于提升个体工作能力和组织管理水平。为构建“12345”市民热线承办人员胜任力模型,采用质性研究方法,以诉求承办人员为研究对象,运用扎根理论对北京市朝阳区城市管理监督中心平台中案件办理录音资料及优秀承办人员访谈资料进行分析和理论构建。研究结果为：（1）提炼工作动机,诉求处理行为和政民互动行为三大核心范畴。（2）以工作动机、问题解决能力、情绪智力、沟通能力及表达能力五个维度构建胜任力模型。研究比较分析了各胜任力维度与以往理论,阐明其在诉求处理过程中发挥的作用,在一定程度上补充了我国胜任力理论研究。     

算法决策趋避的过程动机理论

算法常用于决策, 但相较于由人类做出的决策, 即便内容相同, 算法决策更容易引起个体反应的分化, 此即算法决策趋避。趋近指个体认为算法的决策比人类的更加公平、含有更少的偏见和歧视、也更能信任和接受, 回避则与之相反。算法决策趋避的过程动机理论用以解释趋避现象, 归纳了人与算法交互所经历的原初行为互动、建立类社会关系和形成身份认同三个阶段, 阐述了各阶段中认知、关系和存在三种动机引发个体的趋避反应。未来研究可着眼于人性化知觉、群际感知对算法决策趋避的影响, 并以更社会性的视角来探究算法决策趋避的逆转过程和其他可能的心理动机。     

组织中的揭发行为：决策过程及多层次的理论框架

组织中的揭发行为是员工对工作场所中的违法、破坏规则和不道德行为的检举揭露,是及时纠正组织中错误行为的有效机制。文章回顾了组织中揭发行为的研究起源、概念及测量方法;从不同理论视角探讨了揭发行为的决策过程;从多个层面系统梳理了揭发意愿或行为的影响因素和产生机制;归纳了揭发行为实践的影响结果。提出未来研究应关注跨学科视角的个体前因、区分特定情境变量的影响、探索行为产生机制和开展本土化揭发行为研究等问题。     

健康动机的研究进展与展望

健康动机是人们想要健康的愿望, 是影响人们健康行为的一个决定因素。本文回顾了有关健康动机的理论、测量和实证方面的研究。比较值得推崇的健康动机的动力过程理论认为健康动机是一个内在的动力过程, 并把健康动机对健康行为的作用分为四个阶段: 产生健康愿望、制定计划、采取行动和对行动的坚持。对健康动机的测量主要有一般测量和具体测量两类。实证研究表明健康动机能促进个体的健康行为并由此提高其健康水平。     

消费行为领域中的调节定向

调节定向理论(Higgins,1997)超越传统享乐主义动机,区分出“促进”和“预防”两种调节性动机系统,近年已成为消费行为领域的研究热点之一.调节定向影响着消费者购物决策整个过程,受被试因素(文化背景、自我建构)、刺激因素(信息框架、解释水平、非言语线索、商品属性)和情境因素(决策时间距离、任务操纵)的影响,通过直接作用、调节关联效应和调节匹配效应三种途径决定信息的说服效果,并且受到精细加工可能性的调节.管理者应特别注意具体营销情境中的调节定向,合理利用调节匹配效应.未来研究应关注调节投入理论、调节定向的前因变量以及同网络购物情境相结合,并探索如何削弱预防定向对营销的不利影响.     

创业动机研究：概念结构、影响因素和理论模型

创业动机是驱动个体创业的心理倾向或动力, 它是个体创业行为发生的有效预测变量。在介绍完创业动机的概念、结构和测量工具的基础上, 文章综述了影响创业动机的因素, 包括大五人格特质、自我效能感、目标和环境因素等。接着着重阐述了经典创业动机理论, 包括拉动和推动理论、简单和复杂理论, 以及新近提出的解放理论。最后对未来研究进行了评价和展望。     

情绪的动机维度对趋避行为的影响

基于Gable和Harmone-Jones提出的情绪的动机维度模型,本研究采用改进的模拟“小人”任务实验范式考察了情绪的动机维度如何影响趋避行为。研究结果表明：（1）改进的模拟“小人”任务范式能较好地考察情绪对趋避行为的影响;（2）对情绪图片的有意识和无意识加工均出现了“趋利避害的相容效应”,较好地解决了动机定向理论和事件编码理论的纷争;（3）和低动机强度积极情绪相比,高动机强度积极情绪对趋近行为的易化程度更高;和低动机强度消极情绪相比,高动机强度消极情绪对回避行为的易化程度更髙。     

“近朱者赤”：同事主动行为如何激发员工动机和绩效

以往有关主动性的研究通常聚焦员工本身, 忽略了团队或组织中同事会对员工行为产生影响这一重要管理实践和理论视角。为此, 本研究以社会学习理论为基础, 探讨了同事主动行为对员工自主动机和工作绩效的影响, 以及员工主动性人格的调节作用。通过多时点、上下级匹配问卷(研究1)及情景实验(研究2)两项研究, 本文发现, 同事主动行为可以激发员工的自主动机, 进而提升工作绩效; 并且, 员工主动性人格强化了同事主动行为对员工自主动机的正向作用。本研究不仅从理论上将现有关于主动行为的研究视角迁移到同事, 也为如何更好地激励员工提供了实践指导。     

决策过程中的调节匹配效应及其机制

以大学生为被试,运用实验法探讨了决策过程中调节定向与信息搜索模式之间的匹配效应及其机制。结果显示：(1) 促进定向组被试决策时更偏好基于属性的信息搜索模式,而预防定向组被试决策时更偏好基于选项的信息搜索模式;(2)当两种调节定向组被试分别使用各自所偏好的信息搜索模式制定决策时,达成了调节匹配,相比调节不匹配,这种匹配使被试对其所做选择给出了更积极的评价,即出现了调节匹配效应;(3)加工流畅性可以部分地解释这种调节匹配效应。     

The Price of a Piece of Cheese: Value from Fit Between Epistemic Needs and a Learning Versus an Outcome Focus

In decision making, people can focus on decisional outcomes (outcome focus), but they can also focus on gaining knowledge about the decisional domain (learning focus). Furthermore, people differ in the strength of their epistemic needs—their preference for developing a rich and accurate understanding of the world. We invoke the regulatory fit theory to predict that higher epistemic needs better fit a learning focus than lower epistemic needs, resulting in a greater increase in valuation of the chosen option when a learning rather than an outcome focus is induced. This general hypothesis was tested and supported in three studies, each focusing on a different proxy to epistemic needs. Thus, individuals experienced greater value when they had lower expertise (Study 1), higher need for assessment (Study 2), and higher need for cognition (Study 3) when a learning rather than an outcome focus was induced. Implications for work on epistemic needs, regulatory fit theory, and decision‐making practice are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Making a good decision: value from fit

The classic answer to what makes a decision good concerns outcomes. A good decision has high outcome benefits (it is worthwhile) and low outcome costs (it is worth it). I propose that, independent of outcomes or value from worth, people experience a regulatory fit when they use goal pursuit means that fit their regulatory orientation, and this regulatory fit increases the value of what they are doing. The following postulates of this value from fit proposal are examined: (a) People will be more inclined toward goal means that have higher regulatory fit, (b) people's motivation during goal pursuit will be stronger when regulatory fit is higher, (c) people's (prospective) feelings about a choice they might make will be more positive for a desirable choice and more negative for an undesirable choice when regulatory fit is higher, (d) people's (retrospective) evaluations of past decisions or goal pursuits will be more positive when regulatory fit was higher, and (e) people will assign higher value to an object that was chosen with higher regulatory fit. Studies testing each of these postulates support the value-from-fit proposal. How value from fit can enhance or diminish the value of goal pursuits and the quality of life itself is discussed.     

Imagining how you'd feel: the role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit

The authors propose that how people imagine they would feel about making a choice is affected not only by the outcome's anticipated pleasure or pain but also by regulatory fit. Regulatory fit occurs when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory state and it intensifies the motivation to pursue that goal. Considering positive outcomes fits a promotion focus more than a prevention focus, whereas the reverse is true for negative outcomes. Thus, it is proposed that anticipating a desirable choice is more intensely positive for promotion than prevention, and anticipating an undesirable choice is more intensely negative for prevention than promotion. The results of three studies support these predictions. Studies 2 and 3 also demonstrate that motivational intensity underlies the stronger responses. Thus, to understand fully what it means to feel good or bad about a prospective choice, motivational experiences from regulatory fit must be considered.     

生育年龄限制感提高女性的计划生育数量

近几年我国已陷入低生育率国家的行列, 提高育龄女性的生育意愿迫在眉睫。本研究结合心理阻抗以及毕生控制理论, 探索女性对于生育的年龄限制的知觉对于其生育意愿和计划生育数量的影响。研究1为问卷研究, 结果显示, 女性距离自己认为的理想生育年龄越接近时, 生育意愿越强烈。研究2和研究3为实验法研究, 分别启动未婚女性(研究2)和已婚女性(研究3)对于女性生育年龄的限制感。结果表明, 生育年龄的时间限制可以提升未婚女性对儿童的内隐态度和已婚女性的计划生育数量。研究2还发现, 这种提升效果对于前测生育意愿高的女性影响更大, 且将最佳生育年龄设定为26岁的提升效果优于设定为32岁。本研究的结果表明, 生育限制感可以提高女性的生育意愿。创设女性对适宜生育的年龄有限制感的环境, 将有助于提升育龄女性的生育意愿。不建议以进一步放开人口生育指标(如全面放开生育数量的限制)作为提高生育率的手段, 这反而可能导致育龄女性的生育意愿进一步下滑。     

Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”

Regulatory fit is experienced when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation. Previous research on promotion and prevention orientations has found that regulatory fit increases people’s perception that a decision they made was “right,” which in turn transfers value to the decision outcome, including being willing to pay more for a product than those who chose the same product without regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., in press). We predicted that the effect of regulatory fit on monetary value could be generalized to locomotion and assessment orientations. Participants were willing to pay over 40% more for the same book-light when it was chosen with a strategy that fit their regulatory orientation (assessment/“full evaluation”; locomotion/“progressive elimination”) than when it was chosen with a non-fit strategy.     

Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Basic Principles and Remaining Questions

How can researchers and practitioners use regulatory fit theory to increase the effectiveness of their attempts to change attitudes and behavior? In this article, we extract from the literature a set of basic processes by which fit can influence persuasion and describe different methods for inducing fit. Regulatory fit can influence persuasion by: (i) making message recipients feel right during message reception; (ii) increasing recipients’ strength of engagement with the message, which contributes to processing fluency; and (iii) influencing elaboration likelihood. Integral methods induce fit within the persuasion situation (as with framing of message arguments, source delivery style, and decision means), whereas incidental methods induce fit independent of the persuasion situation. We discuss common difficulties researchers may encounter with these techniques, and clarify existing confusions about regulatory fit and regulatory focus theory. Throughout, we highlight important questions that must be addressed to attain a complete understanding of regulatory fit.     

中国人价值观特点及其与社会主义核心价值观的契合性

本研究采用汉化的Schwartz《肖像价值观问卷》（2012）测量了2569人的大样本,以验证Schwartz新价值观理论及其工具在中国的适用性及中国人价值观结构特点。结果表明,19种价值观内部一致性系数平均为0.66,范围从“支配权力”价值观的0.54到“社会安全”价值观的0.80,验证性因素分析各项指标均达到可接受水平;中国人个人定向类价值观之间的相关关系与原理论假设不相符合;个人定向类和社会定向类价值观之间,出现了多项位置相对、在原理论中假定为低相关的价值观呈高相关关系。表明Schwartz等（2012）价值观理论虽从测量学角度适用中国人群,但其不能预测和解释中国人价值观的“个人”与“社会”辩证统一与交叉融合特点。     

当局者迷,旁观者清?自我-他人决策的理性差异及其机制

生活充满抉择,由于知识经验的局限,人们常需寻求他人建议,抑或直接请他人代己决策.诸多研究探讨了自我决策、向他人建议,以及代他人决策之间的差异.探究这种差异的动因之一在于考察何种条件下的决策更优或更“理性”.以往研究表明,自我决策或他人决策(向他人建议或代他人决策)均有可能更易违背理性决策原则,隐含着他人决策优于自我决策的“当局者迷,旁观者清”这一传统智慧有一定的边界条件.研究者一般从认知(建构水平理论)、情绪(类型和卷入度),以及动机(调节聚焦理论)三种视角对自我-他人决策差异进行解释.本文作者提出基于理由的决策(reason-based account)假设来解释自我-他人决策在理性程度上的差异.未来研究可从决策过程及脑机制上深入考察自我-他人决策差异及其机制.     

Openness to Experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit

Regulatory fit occurs when one’s strategies of goal pursuit sustain one’s interests in an activity, which can enhance motivation [e.g., Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209–213]. Because the strategic inclinations of people high (low) in Openness are similar to those of people in a promotion (prevention) focus, regulatory fit should be possible. We found that people higher in Openness were more motivated to pursue promotion-related goals (hopes/aspirations in Study 1 and a gain-framed goal in Study 2) and less motivated to pursue prevention-related goals (duties/obligations in Study 1 and a loss-framed goal in Study 2). We discuss how other traits might relate to motivation to pursue promotion- and prevention-related goals as well as other future research directions for regulatory focus and Openness.