社会支配倾向研究的回顾与展望

社会支配倾向指个体对基于群体产生的等级制度及社会存在不平等现象的偏好程度。高社会支配倾向者认为高能力者应比低能力者获得更多的社会权利与社会资源;低社会支配倾向者认为社会应该按需分配,不存在等级差异。社会支配倾向会对社会阶层、偏见、政治态度、公平等现象的作用产生影响,是这些现象的重要影响因素。今后需要立足于社会支配倾向的本质与社会应用开展整合性研究。     

能以貌取人吗? 面孔宽高比研究述评

面孔宽高比是左右颧骨点之间的距离除以上面高所得到的比值,被认为是人类面孔性别二态特征之一。男性面孔宽高比被认为是男性睾酮水平的可信外显指标,与攻击行为、欺诈等不道德行为存在显著关联,并受到社会经济地位的调节;面孔宽高比与上进心、对内群体成员的牺牲精神等男性化积极社会行为亦存在显著关联。睾酮水平被认为是面孔宽高比和社会行为两者背后的共变因素,并引起激烈争论:面孔宽高比的性别差异在多个研究中未获支持,男性面孔宽高比与睾酮水平存在关联的直接证据亦有待进一步夯实。     

Knowledge central: A central role for knowledge attributions in social evaluations

Five experiments (N?=?1710) demonstrate the central role of knowledge attributions in social evaluations. In Experiments 1–3, we manipulated whether an agent believes, is certain of, or knows a true proposition and asked people to rate whether the agent should perform a variety of actions. We found that knowledge, more so than belief or certainty, leads people to judge that the agent should act. In Experiments 4–5, we investigated whether attributions of knowledge or certainty can explain an important finding on how people act based on statistical evidence, known as “the Wells effect”. We found that knowledge attributions, but not certainty attributions, mediate this effect on decision making.     

The COVID-19–Social Identity–Digital Media Nexus in India: Polarization and Blame

Drawing on social identity theory and research on digital media and polarization, this study uses a quasi-experimental design with a random sample (n = 3304) to provide causal evidence on perceptions of who is to blame for the initial spread of COVID-19 in India. According blame to three different social and political entities—Tablighi Jamaat (a Muslim group), the Modi government, and migrant workers (a heterogeneous group)—are the dependent variables in three OLS regression models testing the effect of the no-blame treatment, controlling for Facebook use, social identity (religion), vote in the 2019 national election, and other demographics. Results show respondents in the treatment group were more likely to allay blame, affective polarization (dislike for outgroup members) was social identity based, not partisan based, and Facebook/Instagram use was not significant. Congress and United Progressive Alliance voters in 2019 were less likely to blame the Modi government for the initial spread. Unlike extant research in western contexts, affective and political polarization appear to be distinct concepts in India where social identity complexity is important. This study of the first wave informs perceptions of blame in future waves, which are discussed in conclusion along with questions for future research.     

贬损型幽默:笑声能化解敌意吗?

贬损型幽默指包含贬损意味同时令人发笑的信息。释放论、优越论、失谐?解决理论与良性进犯理论尝试解释了其心理机制。贬损不一定好笑,群体身份和态度、接收者与贬损对象的心理距离以及人格、文化差异等均会影响幽默效果。贬损型幽默可以起到释放偏见与表达社会支配倾向的作用,对人际交往的作用则不一致。贬损型幽默的整合性过程模型串联描述了贬损型幽默的机制、前因和后效,可作为未来研究的框架。未来亦可继续探讨贬损型幽默的消极影响,以及其对群际关系和社会公平的潜在积极作用,并关注到中国社会文化背景下的贬损型幽默。     

感恩与大学生创伤后成长的关系：社会支持和希望的中介作用

采用病毒暴露风险问卷、感恩问卷、领悟社会支持量表、希望量表和创伤后成长问卷,以2168名大学生为被试,考察新冠病毒肺炎疫情期间居家学习大学生的感恩对创伤后成长(PTG)的预测作用及社会支持和希望的中介作用。结果发现,有41.61%的大学生出现明显的PTG;在控制了性别、年级、居住地和病毒暴露风险后,感恩可以直接正向预测PTG,也可以分别通过社会支持和希望的中介正向预测PTG,还可以通过社会支持和希望的链式中介正向预测PTG。本研究提示心理干预工作者,要关注疫情期间大学生的心理成长,可以通过提高大学生的感恩、社会支持和希望从而促进PTG。     

心理学对经济学的涉入——从理性自利到社会偏好的决策框架

理性认知能力与社会偏好存在紧密的关联。文章简要回顾了经济决策理论从理性模型到有限理性模型和社会偏好模型的发展进程,论述了人们理性的局限性及其根源,并进一步探讨理性认知能力与社会偏好的关系。对人类以及灵长目动物的研究显示,有限理性可能是由根源于演化的适应性机制所导致。人类不公平厌恶的起源、个体公平能力的发展规律和表征公平的大脑结构上的证据表明,理性认知能力能让人更好地抑制自私性,实现更高层次的公平。     

Who victimizes whom and who defends whom? A multivariate social network analysis of victimization,aggression, and defending in early childhood

The aim of this research was to investigate the interplay between victim‐aggressor relationships and defending relationships in early childhood to test the proposition that young aggressors are less selective than older children in their choice of vulnerable targets. Cross‐sectional multivariate statistical social network analyses (Exponential Random Graph Models) for a sample of 177 preschoolers from seven classes, 5‐ to 7‐years‐old, revealed that boys were more aggressive than girls, toward both boys and girls, whereas defending relationships were most often same‐sex. There was significant reciprocity in aggression, indicating that it was more often bidirectional rather than unidirectional. In addition, aggressors clearly defended each other when they shared their targets of aggression, whereas a marginally significant trend appeared for defending between victims who were victimized by the same aggressors. Furthermore, teacher‐rated dominance was positively associated with children's involvement in both aggression and victimization, and teacher‐rated insecurity was associated with less aggression, but not with victimization. These findings suggest that those who are reported as being victimized may retaliate, or be aggressive themselves, and do not display some of the vulnerabilities reported among older groups of victims. The findings are in line with the proposition that young aggressors are less strategic than older children in targeting vulnerable victims. The network approach to peer victimization and defending contributes to understanding the social processes facilitating the development of aggression in early childhood.     

Attentional biases to threat in social anxiety disorder: time to focus our attention elsewhere?

Background: Cognitive models propose that attentional biases to threat contribute to the maintenance of social anxiety disorder (SAD). However, the specific characteristics of such biases are still object to debate.

Objectives: The current study aimed to disentangle effects of trait and state social anxiety on attention allocation towards social stimuli.

Methods: Participants with SAD (n?=?67) and healthy controls (n?=?62) completed three visual search tasks while their eye movements were recorded. Half of the participants in each group were randomly assigned to a state anxiety induction.

Results: Contrary to our predictions, neither trait nor state social anxiety was associated with a facilitated attention to or a delayed disengagement from threat. However, participants with SAD did show reduced fixation durations for threatening stimuli, indicating an avoidance of threat. Induction of state anxiety led to an increased distractibility by threat.

Conclusions: We suggest that attention allocation in SAD is characterized by an avoidant rather than a vigilant attentional bias. Accordingly, our results contradict previous results that associate SAD with facilitated attention to threat and existing approaches to modify attentional biases, that aim to decrease attention towards threatening stimuli.