The structure of trust as a reflection of culture and institutional power structure: Evidence from four East Asian societies

Using the Global Trust Inventory, an integrated measure of trust toward 21 relationships and institutions, the structure of trust was explored in four East Asian societies (Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The Western model, in which trust is distributed among seven factors representing different branches of society, did not generalize to these East Asian societies, perhaps due to differences in culture and institutional power structures. Instead, two unique structures of trust were identified. Mainland China had a top‐down structure of trust (the China model), in which trust is hierarchically separated between the central government and subordinate implementing bodies. The other three democratic East Asian societies shared a hybrid structure of trust (the Democratic East Asian model) that has a degree of similarity to both the China model and the Western model. Having established two similar, but still distinct models, a cross‐cultural comparison was made on the proportions of trust profiles generated by latent profile analysis. Mainland China had the largest proportion of people with a high propensity to trust, followed by Japan and South Korea, and Taiwan was the least trusting. Implications of the structure of trust and this alternative approach to conducting cross‐cultural comparisons are discussed.     

权力状态对消费者边界偏好的影响

权力在生活中无处不在, 而消费者的权力状态对其消费行为也有着重要的影响。本研究通过一系列的实验, 探讨了消费者权力状态对边界偏好的影响。研究发现, 当消费者处于高权力状态时更喜欢有明确边界的产品或者物品(例如, 明确的产品包装, 物品和标识边框)。与此同时, 消费者权力状态对消费者边界偏好的影响来源于权力引发的控制需求。     

权力概念的垂直方位空间隐喻对权力判断的影响

通过两个反应时实验,探讨权力的垂直方位表征对权力判断的影响。实验1发现,当权力词汇出现的位置(电脑屏幕上方或下方)与权力的空间隐喻一致时(高权力词在低权力词上方),相比于隐喻相反时(高权力词在低权力词下方),被试的反应时更短;实验2重复了这一结果,并进一步发现,隐喻一致促进被试的反应,隐喻相反抑制被试的反应。这表明权力的空间隐喻具有心理现实性,会影响权力信息的认知加工。     

权力对认知的影响：启发式还是分析式？

摘要：权力对信息加工方式的影响成为权力领域研究的新焦点。一般认为,权力使得个体减少对他人和环境的依赖,进而引发简单化的信息加工取向,高权力者常因认知懒惰而采用启发式信息加工策略,然而这与现实情境中高权力者面对复杂的决策环境、做出较好的决策结果的情况不符。事实上,权力既可能产生启发式认知也可能产生分析式认知,但都更受情境的影响。文章从双系统模型的视角对信息加工过程中权力效应的研究进行梳理,并探讨了权力引发不同信息加工方式的调节变量。最后,文章从权力对认知影响的内在机制、角色分配、权力动态变化对认知影响等方面,讨论了现有现有研究的不足,并分析探讨了该领域今后的研究趋势。     

权力的三种心理机制及其影响

权力指控制有价值资源及他人行为结果的相对能力。心理学研究发现,权力不仅是等级制度的核心概念,一种结构变量、社会关系的基础属性,还是一种心理属性,即知觉到自己有能力影响他人的一种心理状态。这一发现促使研究者愈发关注权力效应背后的心理机制。本文在分别综述了权力效应三种心理机制（趋近系统激活、心理距离增加、诱发控制错觉）的基础上,详细分析总结了各心理机制及其影响与拥有权力的人（以下简称掌权者）的认知、动机、情绪乃至判断、决策、行为间的关系,并尝试阐述了各心理机制及其影响与促进集体利益繁荣这一权力产生初衷之间的关系。最后,根据研究现状,就权力各心理机制间的关系、心理机制如何运作、文化与心理机制间的关系等问题进行了讨论。     

中小学生对欺负现象本质内涵的感知*

近年来国内的欺负研究均是直接采用西方“bullying”的内涵界定、理论假说以及测评工具。本研究采用访谈法,立足本土文化探究欺负现象的本质内涵,为测评工具的研发和问题干预提供现实依据。来自54名欺负者、受欺负者、一般者的访谈结果发现:(1)欺负是一种强者有意伤害弱者,且会给弱者带来伤害的攻击行为,其界定性特征是故意伤害性、受伤害性和关系双方间的力量不均衡性。(2) 重复发生性、难以反抗性和道德评判性均是欺负的伴生性特征。(3)欺负现象中蕴含两种关系特征:因果性伤害关系和强弱对比关系。     

The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

We examined the process by which punishment enables forgiveness, testing the proposition that punishment restores a sense of justice to victims, an experience that is empowering. In Study 1 (N = 69), university students received insulting feedback and were given the opportunity (or not) to sanction the offender. In Study 2 (N = 91), participants imagined having the opportunity (or not) to recommend punishment for a person who had vandalized their house. A two‐step mediation model (punishment justice restoration empowerment forgiveness) was supported in these two studies. In Study 3 (N = 227), punishment options were expanded to test the role of victim voice in the context of third‐party and personal retributive and restorative justice responses to workplace bullying, as well as taking into account revenge as an alternative to justice restoration. When victims had voice, empowerment again played a central indirect role in relations between punishment and forgiveness.     

Experimental Philosophy of Explanation Rising: The Case for a Plurality of Concepts of Explanation

This paper brings together results from the philosophy and the psychology of explanation to argue that there are multiple concepts of explanation in human psychology. Specifically, it is shown that pluralism about explanation coheres with the multiplicity of models of explanation available in the philosophy of science, and it is supported by evidence from the psychology of explanatory judgment. Focusing on the case of a norm of explanatory power, the paper concludes by responding to the worry that if there is a plurality of concepts of explanation, one will not be able to normatively evaluate what counts as good explanation.