眼睛效应不稳定与感知规范：一个新视角

眼睛效应指人们面对眼睛或类似眼睛的图案时会发生行为改变的现象。但是, 眼睛效应的稳健性备受争议, 主要有4种观点：促使人们更亲社会、更遵守社会规范、降低反社会行为、无效果。结合规范错觉和创新扩散理论, 基于感知规范的视角, 当感知亲社会规范流行程度较高时, 眼睛效应既会“促进亲社会行为”或“促进人们遵守社会规范”, 也会“降低反社会行为”; 但当感知亲社会规范流行程度较低时, 眼睛效应对一些反社会行为“无效果”; 当规范错觉较大且无规范干预时, 眼睛效应同样对一些反社会行为无效果。因此, 将以上4种争议观点整合为“不同感知规范条件下的眼睛效应”, 揭示了眼睛效应不稳定的原因, 为未来实证研究和实践应用提供理论基础。

Instability of the watching eyes effect and perceived norms: A new perspective

The watching eyes effect refers to a phenomenon that people change behavior while being exposed to images of watching eyes. However, the robustness of the watching eyes effect remains controversial. There are four main views related to the watching eyes effect: 1) promoting pro-social behavior; 2) promoting compliance with social norms; 3) reducing anti-social behavior; and 4) having no effect. Although each of the four main views has theoretical support, it should be noted that they all have limitations. From a viewpoint of perceived norms, the present review incorporates the diffusion of innovations theory with the normative misperception theory and integrates the existing four views into a synthesized one called "the watching eyes effect under different perceived norms".First, we review the evaluation and classification approaches of perceived norms. According to the normative misperception theory, we divided the magnitude of normative misperception into two categories (i.e., large vs. small). When normative misperception is small, taking participation of 50% and 16% as the dividing lines, the prevalence of prosocial norms can be categorized into three types (high, medium, and low). In contrast, when normative misperception is large, individuals’ behavior can be categorized into two types: with intervention and without intervention, and when there is no intervention, sensitivity is used to classify the magnitude of the watching eyes effect on different groups of individuals.Second, we analyze the association between the robustness of the watching eyes effect and the perceived norms. According to the diffusion of innovations theory, individuals with behavioral changes can be categorized into five groups, including innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Taking into account the characteristics of potential adopters in different groups, we argue that: (1) When normative misperception is small with a high level of perceived pro-social norm, the potential adopters are late majority and laggards, who are influenced by social norms easily. In this case, the watching eyes effect can lead people to be more pro-social. (2) When normative misperception is small with a medium level of perceived pro-social norm, the potential adopters are early majority, late majority, and laggards. Since the level of prevalence is less than 50%, social norms may not affect behaviors effectively, and thus the watching eyes effect is unstable. (3) When normative misperception is small with a low level of perceived pro-social norm, the potential adopters are early adopters, who are more concerned about the injunctive norm. Therefore, the watching eyes effect can promote the pro-social behavior stably when the injunctive norm intervention is provided. (4) When normative misperception is large without intervention, it is difficult for individuals to catch clear perceived prosocial norms, which may be difficult for the watching eyes effect to take place in increasing pro-social behavior. (5) When normative misperception is large with intervention, the watching eyes effect will be stable because individuals have caught clear perceived prosocial norms. (6) Individuals who are sensitive to social norms may be more prone to the watching eyes effects, and thus they are more likely to follow the perceived prosocial norms.To summarize, we demonstrate that the robustness of the watching eyes effect depends on the strength of perceived norms. Specifically, when the prevalence of perceived prosocial norms is high, the watching eyes effect can not only “promote prosocial behavior” or “promote more compliance with social norms”, but also “reduce anti-social behavior”. However, when the prevalence of perceived prosocial norms is low, the watching eyes effect will not take place on some anti-social behaviors. When normative misperception is high without normative intervention, the watching eyes effect will also disappear on some anti-social behaviors. The present work sheds light on decoding the mechanism of the robustness of the watching eyes effect and provides theoretical supports for empirical research and practical application in the future.