国民公正观的结构

对429名被调查者的研究发现,最为公众赞同的公正观依次为:(1)公正体现在法律面前人人平等;(2)公正体现为人们在求学、就业、投资、参政等方面的机会平等;(3)公正体现在程序公平合理。因素分析表明,国民的公正观是多元的,可分为6个维度,分别为权利、衡平、救济、报应、平等、平均。聚类分析的结果表明,公正内隐观的6个维度最终可聚为"均等"和"对等"2类。     

组织公正研究:回顾与展望

文章主要回顾了组织公正40多年来的研究成果与进展,包括组织公正的概念和理论发展。并从组织公正概念的整合、机会公正、第三方公正、群体公正、跨文化研究、方法论等几个方面提出了进一步研究的思考和展望。     

对辱虐管理与下属公平感关系的再分析：一个有中介的调节效应模型

新近研究发现辱虐管理对下属互动公平感的负向影响受下属权力距离调节：对低权力距离下属来说这种影响相对较强,反之较弱。基于社会交换理论,本文对现有研究做了两方面拓展。首先,引入下属针对领导的总体公平感,考察权力距离在辱虐管理与总体公平感之间的调节作用,扩展那些仅关注互动公平感的研究。其次,引入领导-部属交换,解释权力距离具体是如何在辱虐管理与下属总体公平感之间发挥调节作用的。以296名企业员工为被试,研究发现：(1)下属权力距离在辱虐管理与下属总体公平感之间有调节作用;(2)这种调节作用是通过领导-部属交换的中介作用实现的,即对不同权力距离的下属来说,辱虐管理对领导-部属交换有不同作用,进而对下属总体公平感产生不同影响。     

社会公正与政治信任：民众对政府的合作行为机制

胡锦涛在中共十八大上提出：必须坚持维护社会公平正义。对社会公正的认知直接决定着民众的政治信任, 进而影响民众对政府的合作。近年来频发的群体性事件即是非合作行为的典型表征。然而, 国内外研究中至今没有直接探讨社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的实证支持, 更无法进一步揭示其作用于合作行为的过程和条件。鉴于此, 本研究将社会公正分为分配公正和程序公正, 将政治信任分为工具信任和情感信任, 采用实验室研究、现场研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法, 探讨社会公正对合作行为的过程机制, 建立其通过工具信任和情感信任作用于合作行为的双路径模型; 并进一步分析结果依赖性对这一路径模型的调节作用。本研究有望提出社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的双路径模型及其调节变量, 一方面在理论上深化和拓展本领域的研究, 另一方面实践中通过提升公正感、强化过程变量(政治信任)、干预调节变量(结果依赖性)等策略促进合作行为。     

Justice and Civic Friendship： An Aristotelian Critique of Modern Citizenry

Modem moral and political theorists make a sharp separation between justice and civic friendship, arguing that justice deals with the fair terms of co-operation in the social sphere whereas civic friendship is about an individual＇s contingent affections in the political domain. In addition, they also argue that the principles of justice must determine the nature and function of civic friendship in modem liberal society. Even though the historical origin of the above view can be traced to the writings of Immanuel Kant （2007）, John Rawls provides us with its most cogent formulation in recent times. In his book A Theory of Justice （1971）, Rawls argues that the considerations of right are prior to the considerations of good; therefore the principles of justice must determine the limits of civic friendship. Against RaMs, I argue that justice and civic friendship are intrinsically connected and that they cannot be separated in experience. I draw upon Aristotle＇s theory of virtue to strengthen my arguments. Following Aristotle, I show that both justice and friendship are virtues and that all virtues hold together. The Aristotelian coherence of virtues, I argue, can be useful in redefining the obligations of justice and civic friendship in contemporary liberal democracies.     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

Comments on Plantinga’s Argument of Transworld Identity

Plantinga’s conception of possible worlds is problematic in one sense: it relies on the prior idea of modality. His strategy for resolving the puzzle of transworld identity is significant in the metaphysical sense but fruitless in the epistemological sense because world-indexed properties cannot be used as effectively in epistemic practice as their counterparts, i.e., space- and time-indexed properties. His isolation of transworld identification from transworld identity is unconvincing. This paper argues that the intelligibility of modal discourse and reference is the essence of transworld identity. It is also proved that transworld identification is the epistemic ground of such intelligibility. Hence, the transworld identification problem is the epistemological foundation of the transworld identity problem, and there must be a comprehensive answer to the former.     

组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响:组织公平和组织认同的中介作用

以353名乡村中小学教师为样本,采用结构方程模型等统计方法,分析了组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响,以及组织公平和组织认同的中介作用。结果表明：（1）组织政治知觉与乡村教师离职意向之间存在显著正相关,组织政治知觉与组织公平之间存在显著负相关;组织公平与组织认同之间存在显著正相关;组织认同与乡村教师离职意向之间存在显著负相关。（2）组织公平和组织认同在组织政治知觉对乡村教师离职意向的影响中起双重中介作用。     

Authorities’ knowledge of shared group membership and its effects on the respect-informing properties of procedural fairness

We observe that the voice-leads-to-respect process underlying relational models of procedural fairness is assumed to follow primarily if not solely from interaction with an in-group authority. Moreover, if the voice recipients believe that the authority is unaware of this shared group membership, then the provision of voice actually says nothing (to the voice recipients) about their standing as group members; the respect-providing information as valued in-group members is absent because the recipients know that the authority does not know of their shared group membership. We tested these assumptions in a three-way design manipulating the group membership of the authority (in-group vs. out-group), the nature of voice (provided vs. denied) and the nature of group membership knowledge (the authority knows or does not know the voice recipient’s group membership). A significant three-way interaction was found, as predicted, on respect and fairness ratings. These data provide clear experimental support for an unstated, and yet untested, assumption of relational models of procedural fairness.     

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or not they were granted or denied voice in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed that the effects of voice versus no-voice on fairness-based perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions were significantly more pronounced for individuals with proself orientations than for individuals with prosocial orientations. These findings were extended in Study 4, a field study in which perceived procedural justice was a stronger predictor of satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors among proselfs than among prosocials. These findings suggest that procedural justice effects can be accounted for by self-oriented motives or needs, rather than prosocial motives that are often conceptualized as being associated with justice.