不确定感在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用

以公平启发理论为基础,结合不确定管理理论,采用情境实验法(实验1)和行为实验法(实验2),探讨了不确定感这一工具性动机在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用。研究结果发现:(1)他人的程序公正会促进自我的合作行为的出现;(2)不确定感降低了自我的合作行为的出现;(3)不确定感中介了他人的程序公正对自我的合作行为的影响。     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

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。     

职场变革情境下的工作与工余塑造:基于自我认同理论的双路径模型

工作非一成不变。即使组织借助工作设计设定了特定职位的工作内容和工作方式,员工也会出于维护积极自我形象、控制感和与人建立联结的核心需求而开展工作塑造——主动调整对工作的认识、工作任务和人际交往——从而获得自我价值感和意义感。尽管工作塑造的前因后效研究已较充分,但较少研究触及自我认同这一核心。鉴于此,本研究以自我认同理论为主线,探寻当个体面临重大外部挑战时,如何通过自我提升与自我防御两种机制应对环境变革,进而借助工作塑造及工余塑造完成自我认同的重构。通过4个研究探讨消除自我认同威胁作为自我防御机制,把握自我成长机会作为自我提升机制,揭示工作环境重大变革激发个体自我塑造行为的中介机制;基于压力应对的认知评价模型,探讨个体特征在初级评估阶段,组织情境特征在次级评价阶段的调节效应;开展现场干预研究,探讨结合自我建构进行工作塑造的效果。本项目将工作塑造和自我认同重新连结起来,构建了工作环境变革情境下个体自我塑造的双路径模型,以望对两个领域均有贡献。     

挑战性压力和阻断性压力对员工创造力的影响:自我效能的中介效应与组织公平的调节效应

压力与创造力的关系一直是组织行为学研究的热点话题,但研究结论并不一致。基于社会认知理论,我们假设自我效能是连接压力与创造力的中介机制。进一步,我们认为挑战性压力对自我效能和创造力的影响取决于员工的分配公平感,而阻断性压力会对员工自我效能和创造力有显著的破坏作用,程序公平有助于缓冲阻断性压力对自我效能和创造力的破坏效应。采用三阶段的纵向研究设计检验上述假设,对来自256对上下级匹配数据的研究结果表明:挑战性压力对自我效能和创造力没有显著的直接影响;分配公平调节挑战性压力通过自我效能对创造力的间接效应:对高分配公平感的员工而言,挑战性压力通过自我效能对创造力的正向间接效应更强。阻断性压力通过抑制员工自我效能进而对其创造力产生显著的负向影响。程序公平对阻断性压力和自我效能以及创造力之间关系的调节效应不显著。     

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。     

大学生自我价值感领域权变性与主观幸福感的关系

为了探讨自我价值感领域权变性与主观幸福感之间的关系,186名大学生参加了问卷调查。对调查数据进行了多元线性回归分析和结构方程建模分析。结果表明,自我价值感的人际接纳权变性对积极情感产生负向的直接效应,并通过自我价值感对积极情感和消极情感分别产生负向的和正向的间接效应;自我价值感的道德原则权变性则对生活满意度和积极情感均产生正向的直接效应,并通过自我价值感对积极情感和消极情感分别产生正向的和负向的间接效应。     

自我损耗对运动表现影响的元分析

运用元分析方法考察自我损耗对运动表现影响及其调节变量。通过中英文文献搜索,共纳入31篇文献和37个效应量,总样本量为1613。结果:(1)总体效应量检验发现,运动任务中的自我损耗为中等效应量,d=0.55,95%CI为[0.39,0.71];由于存在发表偏倚性,该中等效应量可能会被高估。(2)调节变量检验发现,自我损耗效应量较少受研究对象来源、研究对象类型和运动任务类型的影响;但受损耗任务类型和技能型任务中压力情境的影响。(3)执行运动任务时,主观体力感、心率和肌电等指标不存在自我损耗效应。这些研究结果支持了自我控制的力量模型具有普遍适用性,自我控制资源的领域普遍性以及自我控制的力量模型与注意控制理论整合的观点。未来研究应严格控制实验条件、拓展运动任务中自我损耗应对和自我控制训练的研究。     

自我不确定感:内涵、结构和理论

自我不确定感是个体在遇到认知、情感以及行为间的不一致或冲突,对重要的心理品质产生困惑和怀疑时体验到的一致性和连续性缺乏的状态。文章对自我不确定感的概念进行了梳理,然后提出了概念构想模型,认为其结构应包含认知、情绪和动机成分,再后则以自我不确定感的管理策略为线索对相关理论和模型进行了初步整合。未来研究需在明确界定自我不确定感的基础上开展跨文化比较,从多角度检验自我不确定感管理策略的效果,深入探讨自我不确定感的发生和作用机制,探索如何变自我不确定感的被动防御为主动预防与管理。     

社会自我效能感的结构、测量及其作用机制

班杜拉的自我效能理论一直是当代心理学的热点话题。作为社交情境中的特殊自我效能感,社会自我效能感是能够影响个人人际互动质量的重要心理因素之一,因此也逐渐开始受到研究者的关注。通过对国内外理论文章与实证研究的分析发现,社会自我效能感与社交自尊、社交果敢性、社交信心等相关概念有所不同,是指个体对自己社交能力的主观信念;其内涵在不同文化自我或情境的视角下可能存在差异,具有多元结构的可能性。社会自我效能感与个人特质、情绪、态度及行为等变量相关,并能够显著预测抑郁、社交焦虑、生活满意度、社会适应等变量。此外,社会自我效能感也在外向、性别角色、依恋、目标定向、网络人际交往的影响机制中起到中介作用,且能够对压力和不公平感所造成的消极影响具有一定的缓冲作用。然而有关研究仍存在诸多问题与不足,未来研究应该关注社会自我效能感内涵与结构的确定、测量工具的开发,并加强对其影响因素与影响效应的探索、系统模型的构建和跨文化研究的扩展。     

Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice

We propose that self-uncertainty moderates responsiveness to perceived variations (e.g., breaches or provisions) in procedural justice. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals are more responsive to variations in procedural justice, because they use procedural information to infer their organizational acceptance, respect, or social standing. In six experiments, high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals responded with affective, cognitive, and behavioral intensity to perceived variations in procedural justice. In particular, they felt worse, judged the procedure as unfair, and were unwilling to cooperate when they were deprived (as opposed to granted) voice. However, this pattern was cancelled out when these individuals engaged in a self-affirming activity. The findings establish the self in general, and self-uncertainty in particular, as a crucial moderator of responses to procedural information.     

When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect

It is widely acknowledged that procedural justice has many positive effects. However, some evidence suggests that procedural justice may not always have positive effects and may even have negative effects. We present three studies that vary in method and participant populations, including an archival study, a field study, and an experiment, using data provided by the general American population, Indian software engineers, and undergraduate students in the US. We demonstrate that key work-related variables such as people’s job satisfaction and performance depend on procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and risk aversion such that risk seeking people react less positively and at times negatively to the same fair procedures that appeal to risk averse people. Our results suggest that one possible reason for these effects is that being treated fairly reduces people’s perception of uncertainty in the environment and while risk averse people find low uncertainty desirable and react positively to it, risk seeking people do not. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of procedural justice including the uncertainty management model of fairness, the fair process effect, and fairness heuristic theory.     

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.     

Does Having a Say Matter Only if You Get Your Way? INstrumental and Value-Expressive Effects of Employee Voice

Research shows that employees can have process control, decision control, or both, over work outcomes. Process control refers to the extent to which workers have a chance to express their opinions about decisions. Decision control refers to any actual degree of influence over the decision that is made. Both variables have been shown to affect procedural justice, a sense of fairness about how things are done at work, and eventual outcome satisfaction. Some claim that process control has its effect because it contributes to workers' feelings of control over the decision or outcome--the instrumentality perspective. Others claim that process control has an independent effect on procedural justice that is not mediated by perceptions of decision control--the value-expressive approach. These theorists believe that workers value having their opinion heard, independent of any increase in decision control. We present a study that examines these models in a work setting. Structural equation analyses revealed that process control did have a significant direct effect on procedural justice: having a say is not completely dependent on getting one's way. Process control also had a smaller, but still significant, indirect effect on procedural justice that was mediated by decision control. Congruence with prior research and future research implications are discussed.     

Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures

The current research investigates the role of relative intragroup status as a moderator of people’s reactions to procedural justice. Based on a review of the procedural justice literature, the authors argue that information about intragroup status influences people’s reactions to variations in procedural justice. In correspondence with predictions, two experiments show that reactions of people who have been informed about their intragroup status position (either low, average, or high) are influenced more strongly by voice as opposed to no-voice procedures than people who are not informed about their intragroup status. It is concluded that knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice.     

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.     

Managing Self-Uncertainty Through Group Identification

Hogg's uncertainty-identity theory (UIT) is briefly described to identify similarities and differences to Van den Bos's uncertainty management model (UMM). Against a background of significant overlap in scope, mission and concepts, four differences are identified: First, UMM is primarily a theory of motivation for ideological conviction; UIT is a theory of motivation for group identification. Second, UMM talks about personal uncertainty; UIT talks about self-uncertainty—the implications of this difference in terminology are discussed. Third, both theories focus on uncertainty about self; but UIT also focuses on an array of moderating variables that affect the experience of uncertainty and the way in which self-uncertainty is reduced. Finally, and most significantly, UMM does not detail the process of uncertainty reduction; UIT does—it specifies social cognitive processes that reduce self-uncertainty and contexts that direct these processes toward “normal” group phenomena or toward more extreme group phenomena.     

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.