Microsoft Word - 3张书维jz13-427_研究构想_new_.doc

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Microsoft Word - 3张书维jz13-427_研究构想_new_.doc"

鹰莘
5 years ago
Views:

1 2014, Vol. 22, No. 4, Advances in Psychological Science DOI: /SP.J 研究构想 (Conceptual Framework) * 社会公正与政治信任 : 民众对政府的合作行为机制 ( 1, ) ( 2, ) ( 3, ) 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社会公正 ; 工具信任 ; 情感信任 ; 结果依赖性 ; 合作行为 B849:C91 1 问题提出, ( ), (, 2012),, : * ( ) (13&ZD011) (13wkpy45) :, zhshuw2@mail.sysu.edu.cn, (distributive justice) (Deutsch, 1975) (procedural justice) (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) (social justice),,,, (Gustafsson, Li, & Sicular, 2008; Whyte, 2010), (, 2012), (Wegener, 2000), (political 588

2 4 : 589 trust) (Levi & Stoker, 2000; Jost & Kay, 2010), (, 2009); ( ) ( ) (Rankin & Tyler, 2009) (cooperation) (Tyler, 2011a), (self interest), (Tyler, 2008),, ( ) ( ) 2 国内外研究现状及评述 2.1 社会公正与合作行为 (organizational justice) (Deutsch, 1985), (outcome justice) (opportunity justice) (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), (informational justice) (interpersonal justice), (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Oreg & van Dam, 2009) (robust), (Tyler, 2012), Sunshine Tyler (2003), Murphy Tyler (2008), (compliance behavior);, (rule-following) (Tyler, 2009);, (Wu & Wang, 2013); (cooperate with law enforcement) (Huq, Tyler, & Schulhofer, 2011);, (Watson & Angell, 2013),,,,,, (, 2009;,, 2012),,, 婍 (2010),,,, (personal norms), (Verboon & Goslinga, 2009) 2.2 政治信任与合作行为 (government) (institutions), (Levi & Stoker, 2000) (trust in authority), (institutional perspective)

3 (cultural perspective) (Mishler & Rose, 2001;, 2010) ( ) (performance), (Wong, Wan, & Hsiao, 2011) (political socialization) (Shi, 2001), (outcome-orientation); (process-orientation),,, ( 婍,, 2010), McAllister (1995) (cognition-based trust) (affect-based trust),, (,, 2009; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011),, (McAllister, 1995; Schaubroeck et al., 2011) (instrumental trust) (affective trust),, ;,, (, 2008) Chanley, Rudolph Rahh (2000), (Hetherington, 2005; Rudolph & Evans, 2005), (Hetherington, 1999; Scholz & Lubell, 1998; Tyler, 2011b),, (social dilemma), (Ng & Chua, 2006),,, 2.3 社会公正与政治信任的关系及结果依赖性的调节作用, (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005; 婍,, 2010) (fairness heuristic theory) (Lind, 2001), ( ) (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; De Cremer, 2004) (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007); (Langendijk, van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2009) ( ), (Citrin & Muste, 1999),,,,,,

4 4 : 591 (outcome dependence) (Clark & Wegener, 2008), (van der Toorn, Tyler, & Jost, 2011) (van der Toorn et al., 2011),, (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007),,,,, ( ) ( ),,,, 2.4 研究问题,,, ( ) 3 研究构想,, 1, 3.1 研究一 : 社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的双路径模型 6 ( ) H1 H1a 1

5 H1b H2 H2a H2b H3 H4 H5; H6: 3.2 研究二 : 社会公正与政治信任到合作行为的双路径模型结果依赖性的调节作用,,, 3 ( ) H7 H7a, H7b, H8 H8a,, H8b,, H9 H9a,, H9b,, 3.3 研究方法 (laboratory experiment) (field experiment) (questionnaire survey),,, (,, 2013;, 2013;,,, 2012) (Baron & Kenny, 1986), ( ),,

6 4 : 预期结果与研究意义,, ( ),, ( ) ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,, 胡锦涛. (2012). 坚定不移沿着中国特色社会主义道路前进为全面建成小康社会而奋斗在中国共产党第十八次全国代表大会上的报告. 北京 : 人民出版社. 李骏, 吴晓刚. (2012). 收入不平等与公平分配 : 对转型时期中国城镇居民公平观的一项实证分析. 中国社会科学, (3), 孟天广. (2012). 转型期中国公众的分配公平感 : 结果公平与机会公平. 社会, 32(6), 孙明. (2009). 市场转型与民众的分配公平观. 社会学研究, (3), 王二平. (2009). 群体性事件的心理学分析. 见北京市社会科学界联合会, 北京师范大学 ( 编 ), 科学发展, 文化软实力与民族复兴 ( 上卷 ) (pp ). 北京 : 北京师范大学出版社. 韦惠民, 尤丽荣. (2009). 主管认知信任和情感信任对员工行为及绩效的影响. 心理学报, 41(1), 熊美娟. (2010). 政治信任研究的理论综述. 公共行政评论, 4(6), , 203. 叶宝娟, 温忠麟. (2013). 有中介的调节模型检验方法 : 甄别和整合. 心理学报, 45(9), 尹继武. (2008). 国际关系中的信任概念与联盟信任类型. 国际论坛, (2), 张婍. (2010). 当局信任对公众态度和合作行为的影响 : 分配公正感和程序公正感的中介作用. 博士学位论文, 中国科学院. 张婍, 王二平. (2010). 社会困境下政治信任对公众态度和合作行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 18(10), 张书维. (2013). 群际威胁与集群行为意向 : 群体性事件的双路径模型. 心理学报, 45(12), 张书维, 王二平, 周洁. (2012). 跨情境下集群行为的动因机制. 心理学报, 44(4), Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239

7 Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes, measures of social psychological attitudes (Vol. 2, pp ). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. Clark, J. T., & Wegener, D. T. (2008). Unpacking outcome dependency: differentiating effects of dependency and outcome favorability on the processing of goal-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader s bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, De Cremer, D. & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural justice on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. Folger, R. G., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Gustafsson, B. A., Li, S., & Sicular, T. (2008). Inequality and public policy in China. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hetherington, M. J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, The American Political Science Review, 93, Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Huq, A., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. (2011). Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement: The influence of the purposes and targets of policing? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17(3), Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp ). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Langendijk, G., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2009). How power and trust explain procedural fairness effects on self esteem. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust?: Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), Murphy, K. & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, Ng, K. Y., & Chua, R. Y. J. (2006). Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential Effects of cognition- and affect-based trust. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), Oreg, S., & van Dam, K. (2009). organizational justice in the context of organizational change. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, Rankin, L. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Justice and cooperation. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), Scholz, J. T., & Lubell, M. (1998). Trust and taxpaying: Testing the heuristic approach to collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), Shi, T. J. (2001). Cultural values and political trust: A comparison of the People s Republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 33(4), Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R. (2008). The psychology of cooperation. In B. A. Sullivan, M. Snyder, & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), Cooperation:

8 4 : 595 The political psychology of effective human interaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural justice, identity and deference to the law: What shapes rule following in a period of transition? Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, Tyler, T. R. (2011a). Why people cooperate. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2011b). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice and effective cooperation. Social Justice Research, 25(4), van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, Verboon, P., & Goslinga, S. (2009). The role of fairness in tax compliance. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, Watson, A. C., & Angell, B. (2013). The role of stigma and uncertainty in moderating the effect of procedural justice on cooperation and resistance in police encounters with persons with mental illnesses. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 19(1), Wegener, B. (2000). Political culture and post-communist transition: A social justice approach: Introduction. Social Justice Research, 13(2), Whyte, M. K. (2010). Myth of the social volcano: Perceptions of inequality and distributive injustice in contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wong, T. K., Wan, P., & Hsiao, H. M. (2011). The bases of political trust in six Asian societies: Institutional and cultural explanations compared. International Political Science Review, 32(3), Wu, X. N., & Wang, E. P. (2013). Outcome favorability as a boundary condition to voice effect on people s reactions to public policymaking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, Social Justice and Political Trust: The Mechanism of Cooperation with Government ZHANG Shuwei 1 ; XU Zhiguo 2 ; XU Yan 3 ( 1 Center for Chinese Public Administration Research; School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou , China) ( 2 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou , China) ( 3 School of Sociology and Anthropology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou , China) Abstract: People s perception of social justice affects their political trust, which influences their cooperation with government. Mass incidents, which refer to the conflicts between certain civilians and local administration, are typical non-cooperative behavior in China. However, for the lack of empirical research on the relationship between cooperation and social justice or political trust, there is no investigation on the process and condition on mechanism of cooperation. In this research, social justice is divided into distributive justice and procedural justice, and political trust is divided into instrumental trust and affective trust. This study will focus on social psychological mechanism of social justice and cooperation with the methods of laboratory experiment, field experiment and questionnaire survey, and it aims to construct the dual-pathway model of cooperation by instrumental trust and affective trust. Furthermore, this study will also explore the moderating roles of outcome dependence on the relationship between social justice and cooperation. An important theoretical implication of this study is that it will construct the dual-pathway model of cooperation and its moderate mechanism. Regarding practical implications, this research will examine the social psychological mechanism underlying cooperation with government in China by examining motivation, thus informing administrators and policy makers on how to promote intergroup cooperation in response to public administration. Key words: social justice; instrumental trust; affective trust; outcome dependence; cooperation

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20433032372DA451A447A67EB0EAA5C1B0F2A5BBB1D0A87CA74BB8D5A44ABEC7B657C342A4F1A7C7A4BDA5ADA9CAA4A7BDD7AD7A2D2D31303230313234ADD72E646F63>

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20433032372DA451A447A67EB0EAA5C1B0F2A5BBB1D0A87CA74BB8D5A44ABEC7B657C342A4F1A7C7A4BDA5ADA9CAA4A7BDD7AD7A2D2D31303230313234ADD72E646F63> 十二年國民基本教育免試入學超額比序公平性之論述 : 以中投區模擬作業為例摘要我國自 2011 年將開始啟動十二年國民基本教育,2014 年全面推動, 這是國家教育政策重大改變的轉捩點, 也是提昇國民教育水平, 培養國家潛力的重要