Explaining the Feelings of Justice

Philosophical theories about justice feelings and axiological feelings generally suffer from the fact that they look for simple criteria of justice, legitimacy, fairness. For this reason, they appear as of little help to account for the findings from sociological empirical studies. Weber's notion of "axiological rationality" can be interpreted as suggesting a "cognitivist" theory of axiological feelings. According to this theory, the causes responsible for the fact that a social actor endorses an axiological statement would not be basically different from the causes responsible for his endorsement of a representational statement. He would endorse the statement "X is fair" as he endorses "X is true", because these statements appear to him as grounded on strong reasons, though he may not perceive these reasons explicitly. This cognitivist theory was used by analysts of collective moral sentiments, as Adam Smith, before Max Weber. A careful examination of two empirical studies shows that the cognitivist theory can make the observational findings more easily understandable. The "cognitivist theory" eliminates the weaknesses of the major general philosophical and sociological theories of axiological feelings. It shows notably that these feelings can be context-dependent without this contextuality making them irrational. This theory includes two major principles: that instrumental rationality does not overlap with rationality shortly; that there are no simple criteria of "fairness", "legitimacy", etc.     

社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程

基于目标追求理论和社会阶层心理学的相关理论, 本文通过3个研究, 逐步深入地考察了社会公平感对不同阶层个体目标达成的影响作用及其过程。研究1为相关研究, 考察了高低阶层成人被试的教育领域社会公平感与为孩子进行教育投入的目标承诺及目标达成之间的关系; 研究2为准实验研究, 通过操纵公平或不公平教育情境启动公平感, 考察其对高低阶层中学生的学习目标承诺与目标达成的影响; 研究3为实验研究, 通过实验操纵社会公平感和社会阶层, 考察社会公平感对高低阶层大学生的实验任务目标承诺和目标达成的影响。研究发现, 社会公平感通过正向影响低阶层者的目标承诺, 进而正向影响其目标达成; 而对于高阶层者来说, 变量之间这些关系则不显著。这表明：相对于高阶层来说, 低阶层者的目标追求易受社会公平感的影响; 低阶层者的社会公平感水平越高, 其追求目标的动机水平就越高, 进而越有利于目标达成。     

价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线动态价格的感知与购买意愿的影响*

采用问卷与实验相结合的方法,以112名大学生为被试,考察价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线购物时对动态定价策略下的价格感知与购买意愿的影响。结果发现：（1）相比非动态价格,动态价格条件下消费者感知价格公平感、购买意愿都较低;（2）在打折框架下,高认知闭合需要者对采取动态价格在线购物网站的感知信任显著好于非动态价格,而低认知闭合需要者则相反,说明消费者的价格感知受这三个变量的综合影响;（3）在降价框架下,认知闭合需要与动态价格的交互作用不显著,意味着在线消费者的购买意愿可能受到更多其它因素制约。     

群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注

群际互动是社会互动的一种重要形式, 在人类社会发展中起着重要作用。已有的行为研究表明个体参与群际互动时, 互动对象的群体身份会影响其心理加工和行为决策。但目前关于群体身份如何影响公平加工的动态时间过程尚不清楚。为了研究群体身份对最后通牒任务(Ultimatum Game, UG)中反应者公平关注的影响, 15名健康成人作为反应者与组内和组外提议者进行UG博弈, 提议包括极端不公平、中等不公平或公平提议三种。事件相关电位结果发现, 组外互动时公平提议和中等不公平提议比极端不公平提议诱发更负的AN1, 组内互动时不同提议诱发的AN1无显著差异。来自组内成员的中等和极端不公平提议比公平提议引起更负的内侧额叶负波(MFN), 但来自组外成员的不同提议则没有导致MFN波幅的变化。这些结果表明在群体互动情境下, 互动成员的群体身份能够影响个体的早期注意资源分配和公平关注加工。     

药物化学的发展与相关学科的关系

药物化学的发展经历了一个世纪的时间,其发展过程与相关学科的发展有很大的关系,从中我们可以得到一些启示.     

产后抑郁症相关因素及防治

产后抑郁症是产妇常见的心理行为异常,严重危害产妇的身心健康,其病因复杂。用系统论方法分析产后抑郁症相关因素,论述产后抑郁症发生是由多方面因素引起,而各因素之间是相互制约、相互作用的。因此,防治产后抑郁症应从整体考虑,多种方法综合应用,以期达到最佳防治效果。     

A Multi-Cultural Study of Salespeople's Behavior In Individual Pay-For-Performance Compensation Systems: When Managers Are More Equal And Less Fair Than Others

In this research, we examine salespeople's behavior in individual pay-for-performance compensation systems and show how perceived management fairness seems to energize sales employees in some environments but not in others. We use a large multicountry database of individual-level remuneration for more than 2,500 salespeople across four B2B industry sectors to demonstrate cultural adaptations of the effect of perceived management fairness. The results indicate that top management should be concerned with employees' perceptions of fairness in addition to the more typical concerns of control and motivation widely acknowledged in the microeconomics-based sales-force compensation literature. In particular, we show that perceptions of management fairness are key to salespeople's proportion of total pay generated by pay-for-performance formulas.     

Social Value Orientation Moderates the Effects of Intuition versus Reflection on Responses to Unfair Ultimatum Offers

We investigated whether social value orientation (SVO) moderates the effects of intuitive versus reflective information processing on responses to unfair offers. We measured SVO one week prior to an ultimatum game experiment in which participants had to accept or reject a series of 10 ultimatum offers including very low (unfair) ones. Before making these decisions, participants mentally contrasted their individual goals with the obstacle of pondering at length or acting in a hasty way; then they made the plan to adopt an intuitive or a reflective mode of processing (intuitive and reflective condition, respectively), or made no such plans (control condition). Participants with rather high (prosocial) SVO scores were more likely to accept unfair offers in the reflective than the intuitive condition. This effect also evinced for a subset of selfish individuals; however, the majority with rather low (selfish) scores made similar decisions in both conditions. This pattern of results suggests that SVO moderates the effects of intuitive versus reflective modes of processing on responses to low ultimatum offers. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Moral foundations tell us why guilt induces unfair allocation in multi‐party interactions

Previous studies have demonstrated that a sense of guilt promotes and maintains social fairness in two‐party interactions (Psychological Bulletin, 115, 1994 and 243). However, the situation is much more complex in three‐party or multi‐party interactions. De Hooge et al. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 2011 and 462) found that guilt could not only induce pro‐social behaviour towards the victim, but also have a disadvantageous impact on a third party. In the present study, we attempt to explain how guilt promotes unfair allocations from a moral foundations perspective. We conducted two experiments using a ‘three‐party dictator game’ paradigm. Firstly, it was repeatedly verified that guilt could induce unfair allocations in three‐party interactions. Secondly, five moral foundations (harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy and purity) were measured. Then the moderating and main effects of these five indices on how guilt affects the fair allocation of resources were explored using regression analysis. The results show that competition between harm and fairness in individual traits can explain the disadvantageous effect of guilt on fair allocations: the fairness foundation promoted equality in allocation, while the harm foundation promoted victim compensation.