ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1575-1585 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01575

研究前沿

我们真的能感同身受吗?——替代性排斥对个体的影响及理论解释

杨晓莉,, 邹妍

西北师范大学心理学院, 甘肃省心理与行为重点实验室, 兰州 730070

Can we really empathize? The influence of vicarious ostracism on individuals and its theoretical explanation

YANG Xiaoli,, ZOU Yan

Key Laboratory of Behavioral and Mental Health of Gansu Province, School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China

通讯作者: 杨晓莉, E-mail:yangxiaolianny@126.com

收稿日期: 2020-01-6   网络出版日期: 2020-09-15

基金资助: * 教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目资助(17JZD043)
西北师范大学青年教师科研能力提升计划重大项目(编号: 2019-01-02)

Received: 2020-01-6   Online: 2020-09-15

摘要

替代性排斥是指观察别人遭受排斥, 其自身也感受到排斥体验的一种排斥形式。基于行为研究视角和神经影像视角发现, 经历替代性排斥会引发个体需求、情绪、行为和神经网络等方面的反应。排斥觉察系统理论、多元动机模型理论、道德归因理论、社会认同理论以及共情理论为经历替代性排斥的个体为何做出这些反应提供了理论依据。未来研究还可以从个体的特质共情、排斥情境的复杂程度以及理论解释等方面继续探索, 以丰富替代性排斥的研究范畴。

关键词: 替代性排斥; 基本需求; 情绪; 行为; 功能性磁共振成像

Abstract

Vicarious ostracism refers to a form of ostracism that observes other's experience of ostracism and also feels the experience of ostracism. From the perspective of behavioral study and neuroimaging, it is found that experiencing vicarious ostracism can trigger individual's needs, emotion, behavior and brain network responses, etc. Ostracism detection system theory, multimotive model theory, moral attribution theory, social identity theory and empathy theory provide a theoretical basis for why individuals were experiencing vicarious ostracism make these responses. Future research can also continue to explore the complexity of ostracism situations, individual's empathy and theoretical explanation in order to expand the scope of vicarious ostracism.

Keywords: vicarious ostracism; basic needs; emotion; behavior; fMRI

PDF (640KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

杨晓莉, 邹妍. 我们真的能感同身受吗?——替代性排斥对个体的影响及理论解释 . 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1575-1585 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01575

YANG Xiaoli, ZOU Yan. Can we really empathize? The influence of vicarious ostracism on individuals and its theoretical explanation. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(9): 1575-1585 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01575

1 引言

人是一种通过与他人建立和维持社会关系以获得生存和繁殖的高级物种, 因此, 想要获得他人的接纳和认可成了个体普遍而永恒的追求(Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, & Williams, 2012)。然而, 社会排斥的发生则会威胁到个体的这种追求, 使排斥者(Legate, DeHaan, & Ryan, 2015)和受排斥者(Katharina et al., 2018)的身心健康都受到一定的损害。所以, 对于社会排斥的研究, 在最开始就把目光集中在探讨排斥双方身心反应的直接排斥情境中。但是, 随着研究的深入, 旁观者通过牺牲自我利益来惩罚违规者的行为越来越受到学者的关注(谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019)。由此, 在社会排斥范畴内, 替代性排斥(vicarious ostracism)对个体产生的影响也激发了研究者们的兴趣。

替代性排斥是指个体观察别人遭受排斥, 其自身也感受到被排斥的心理体验现象(Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009; Wesselmann, Williams, & Hales, 2013), 因此, 替代性排斥也被称为观察排斥(observed ostracism; Giesen & Echterhoff, 2018)。研究表明, 经历替代性排斥的个体, 也会产生一系列痛苦和消极的体验(Wesselmann et al., 2009, 2013), 接着可能还会采取一定的行为方式对排斥情境做出反应, 如同情或帮助受排斥者, 惩罚排斥实施者(Rudert, Ruf, & Greifeneder, 2019; Wesselmann, Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2013), 以此来缓解其自身也感受到的这种人际威胁。

目前, 在社会排斥领域内, 替代性排斥逐渐受到了学者们的关注。一方面, 观察者的存在使排斥情境具有了合理性的判断(Rudert, Reutner, Greifeneder, & Walker, 2017), 正如第三方惩罚能够促进社会公平一样(廖玉玲, 洪开荣, 张亮, 2015), 观察者的存在使排斥双方在一些场合中的不合理行为有所收敛, 从而扩大了社会规范的维护范围。另一方面, 观察者的反应是在复杂的排斥情境中产生的, 从演化的角度来看, 观察者为何做出这些反应的理论解释更加值得探讨。因此, 本文将基于以往替代性排斥的实证研究, 阐述替代性排斥情境对个体的影响及理论解释, 以便为未来研究提供更多的启发。

2 经历替代性排斥对个体的影响:基于行为研究视角

2.1 经历替代性排斥对个体基本需求的影响

人们普遍认为, 经历直接排斥会引发受排斥者痛苦的体验(Bach et al., 2019), 并导致其基本需求受阻(Welker, Oberleitner, Cain, & Carré, 2013)。然而, 近年来研究发现, 仅仅是观察别人被排斥的情境也会让观察者产生痛苦的体验(Wesselmann et al., 2013), 对于这种由替代性排斥所引起的痛苦(史燕伟, 徐富明, 王伟, 李燕, 刘程浩, 2015), 是否也会导致观察者的基本需求受阻呢?为此, 研究者们一直探索经历替代性排斥个体的基本需求的变化。Coyne, Nelson, Robinson和Gundersen (2011)的研究发现, 观察排斥的情境会让观察者的心率和皮肤电导率加快; Paolini, Alparone, Cardone, van Beest和Merla (2016)的研究也发现, 个体在经历直接排斥和替代性排斥时面部温度都会升高。这些生理指标的变化被认为可能是基本需求受到威胁的一种间接预警信号(Paolini et al., 2016)。

为了更直接地证明经历替代性排斥同样会使个体感到基本需求受阻, Wesselmann等人(2009)Paolini, Pagliaro, Alparone, Marotta和van Beest (2017)分别进行了实证研究, 与以往研究不同的是, 这两次研究都是将需求满意度量表作为直接的测量题目, 结果发现, 相较于观察接纳, 观察排斥确实会降低观察者的需求满意度。并且, Paolini等人(2017)的研究还进一步证明, 基本需求受阻是观察者做出行为反应的中介因素。然而, 随之而来的问题是, 既然经历替代性排斥同样能够引起个体的基本需求受阻, 那么, 与经历直接排斥所引起的基本需求受阻程度是否一样呢?Giesen和Echterhoff (2018)的研究表明, 虽然直接排斥和替代性排斥都能够导致个体的基本需求受阻, 但相较于直接排斥, 替代性排斥所诱发的这种效应略低。研究者将这一结果解释为:个体产生共情的认知-情感系统区分情境的来源, 即会明显区分出自我和他人痛苦(Lamm, Decety, & Singer, 2011), 因此, 在排斥的不同经历形式中, 个体会感到明显的区别, 这种区别的作用就在于, 防止个体在经历替代性排斥时产生与直接排斥相同程度的痛苦(Singer & Lamm, 2009); 此外, 共情系统的反应也取决于各种因素的不同, 例如, 共情能力可能会受到观察者与受排斥者之间的社会关系、熟悉程度、相似程度的影响(Singer & Lamm, 2009), 因此, 社会关系陌生、缺乏熟悉感和相似度, 同样会削弱经历替代性排斥个体的基本需求受阻程度(Giesen & Echterhoff, 2018)。综上所述, 与经历直接排斥一样, 经历替代性排斥也会使个体基本需求受阻。这一研究结果不仅揭示了个体具有共情能力, 而且也揭示了个体对排斥情境具有监测能力, 即不论是针对自己的排斥, 还是针对他人的排斥, 都会激活个体监测排斥的系统, 从而导致其基本需求受阻。

2.2 经历替代性排斥对个体情绪的影响

情绪被认为是比基本需求更灵敏的预警信号, 它是个体一种自发的、基本的反应(Clore, Schwarz, & Conway, 1994); 此外, 情绪的变化也被认为对个体内心变化具有重要的参考信息(Schwarz & Clore, 1996), 即人们常说的“喜怒形于色”。因此, 对情绪的研究一直都吸引着学者们的注意。研究发现, 不仅是亲身经历某些情境才会引发个体的情绪变化, 感知某些情境同样也会让个体产生情绪反应(Ackerman, Goldstein, Shapiro, & Bargh, 2009)。一项研究证明, 个体在资源消耗后感知他人的积极情绪, 会引起与他人相同的心理表征, 使其自身的情绪状态发生改变, 从而对消耗的资源起到补偿作用, 换言之, 感知他人的积极情绪对自我控制资源的损耗有替代性的恢复作用(胡圣楠 等, 2018)。

与之相似的是, 经历替代性排斥同样会使个体产生消极的情绪体验。Wesselmann等人(2009)研究发现, 观察排斥的个体报告出的积极情绪总体低于观察接纳的个体。为了进一步研究个体的情绪反应在替代性排斥与直接排斥中是否存在差异, Giesen和Echterhoff (2018)的研究使用了几个形容词(如愉快的、生气的等), 分别测量了个体在替代性排斥与直接排斥后的情绪反应, 结果表明, 个体消极情绪的唤醒程度在替代排斥和直接排斥之间没有差异。研究者将这一结果解释为:人类的觉察系统已经进化到对违反社会规范的行为特别敏感, 这种觉察系统会不停地监测、提醒个体注意环境中可能出现的不受欢迎或有害的情境, 并促使个体快速找出这些潜在风险的根源, 以免受到不必要的伤害(Wesselmann et al., 2009)。而由于情绪本身具有的灵敏性且自发性的特点, 使得个体在经历替代性排斥和经历直接排斥时, 情绪的反应没有差异(Giesen & Echterhoff, 2018)。然而, 需要注意的是, 个体在经历直接排斥和经历替代性排斥时情绪没有差异, 这仅仅是指情绪的唤醒程度, 研究者并没有像个体在经历直接排斥后一样, 将情绪反应细分为具体的情绪种类(杨晓莉, 魏丽, 2017)或情绪麻木状态(DeWall & Baumeister, 2006)来比较, 原因可能与替代性排斥的研究范式有关。研究表明, 在对直接排斥情境进行操纵时, 不同的操纵范式会对受排斥者产生不同程度的社会伤害, 而不同程度的社会伤害则会导致不同的情绪反应(杨晓莉, 信同童, 毛玉翠, 2019), 例如, 研究者使用孤独终老范式对直接排斥进行操纵时, 受排斥者会产生情绪麻木的状态(DeWall et al., 2011), 然而, 在替代性排斥研究中, 并没有衍生出使观察者产生情绪麻木的孤独终老范式的变式。因此, 经历替代性排斥的个体, 是否会产生和经历直接排斥个体相同的焦虑、愤怒或麻木等情绪反应, 还需不同的实验范式进一步证明。

2.3 经历替代性排斥对个体行为的影响

行为是有机体在各种内外部刺激影响下产生的外显活动, 是个体基本需求和情绪变化的外在表现形式, 因此, 经历替代性排斥个体的行为变化也受到研究者的重点关注。首先, 经历替代性排斥的个体, 会对受排斥者表现出一种补偿性行为。Wesselmann等人(2013)采用网络在线掷球游戏(Cyberball)范式, 探讨了个体在观察排斥情境后的行为反应, 结果表明, 观察者会倾向于将传到自己手中的球传给无辜的受排斥者; Paolini等人(2017)研究发现, 相较于替代性接纳, 经历替代性排斥的个体愿意给受排斥者分配更多金钱(无论受排斥者是无辜的还是有责任的); Will等人(2013)的研究还发现, 当儿童观看了排斥条件的网络掷球游戏后, 在随后的独裁者博弈游戏中, 他们甚至会牺牲自己的一部分金钱来补偿受排斥者。

其次, 经历替代性排斥的个体, 会对排斥实施者表现出攻击性行为。Yang, Wei, Zhao和Liu (2017)基于群际直接排斥的研究发现, 相比于受内群体成员的排斥, 受外群体成员排斥的个体会对排斥实施者表现出更高的攻击性。这一结果在群际替代性排斥的研究中得到了很好的延续, 即与个体观察到内群体成员遭受内群体排斥相比, 观看到内群体成员被外群体排斥时, 会对排斥实施者表现出更高的攻击性行为。早期研究为这一结果提供了间接证据, 即观察到内群体成员遭受到外群体欺凌时, 个体会将外群体的这种排斥归结为对内群体的偏见, 继而使其产生强烈的愤怒情绪体验(Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008; Halevy, Chou, Cohen, & Bornstein, 2010), 而产生偏见归因和愤怒情绪是接下来实施替代性报复行为(以攻击行为为主)的主要因素(艾娟, 2017)。最新一项研究更是为个体在经历替代性排斥后会产生攻击性行为提供了直接证据, 该研究发现, 相比于观察到内群体成员被内群体排斥, 观察到内群体成员被外群体排斥时, 个体会对排斥实施者表现出更高的攻击意向(Yang, Xin, & Zhao, 2020)。

最后, 个体在经历替代性排斥后, 其本身会表现出想要与他人亲近的行为。Over和Carpenter (2009)要求孩子们要么观看一组图形排斥单一图形的短视频, 要么观看一组图形和单一图形一起移动的对照视频, 结果发现, 与对照组儿童相比, 观看排斥视频的儿童模仿行为更多; Song, Over和Carpenter (2015)沿用Over和Carpenter研究中的视频游戏, 并让4岁和5岁的孩子画出自己和朋友图画, 与对照组相比, 观看排斥短视频的孩子都把自己和他站得更近的朋友画在一起; Marinović, Wahl和Träuble (2017)的最新研究发现, 儿童在观看了描述排斥的启动视频后, 会选择离互动者(研究主试)距离较近的座位。虽然这些证据都是以儿童为研究对象, 但这些研究结果与空间语言学的观点吻合, 即个体(不论是儿童还是成人)可以通过调节空间距离来表达一种非语言的接纳或排斥信息(Novelli, Drury, & Reicher, 2009), 因此, 成人个体在遭受替代性排斥后也可能会表现出想要与他人亲近的行为。但是, 由于成人个体的认知能力、共情能力以及生活阅历与儿童相比都存在差异(申继亮, 陈勃, 王大华, 2000; Masten, Eisenberger, Pfeifer, & Dapretto, 2013), 所以, 成人在经历替代性排斥后本身的行为反应如何, 还需实证研究进一步佐证。概而言之, 经历替代性排斥与经历直接排斥一样, 都会对个体行为产生不同的影响。但与直接排斥的研究不同的是, 替代性排斥对个体行为的影响受排斥理由的调节作用(Yang, Xin, & Zhao, 2020), 即合理的排斥理由会使观察者认同排斥实施者的行为, 甚至加入排斥实施者的行列, 但是荒缪的排斥理由只会唤醒观察者的正义感, 致使观察者采取一定的行为措施, 来阻止不合理的排斥情景继续发生, 即对受排斥者做出补偿性行为或对排斥实施者做出攻击行为。

3 经历替代性排斥对个体的影响:基于神经影像视角

近年来, 随着脑成像、神经电等生理研究技术的兴盛, 学者们通过神经影像技术对受排斥者的神经活动模式进行分析, 进一步探索了社会排斥的神经机制(彭苏浩, 陶丹, 冷玥, 邓慧华, 2019)。而替代性排斥作为社会排斥研究领域的组成部分, 对其神经机制的研究也涌现出许多新的发现, 特别是以脑成像技术为代表的脑网络分析, 使研究者从神经影像学的角度对替代性排斥有了更深层次的认识。

正如经历直接排斥会激活一系列的脑区, 经历替代性排斥同样能够激活一系列的脑区。Masten, Morelli和Eisenberger (2011)用脑成像技术测试个体在观察他人经历排斥时的情境, 结果发现, 观察他人经历排斥同样激活了观察者的内侧前额叶(medial prefrontal cortex, MPFC; 彭苏浩等, 2019)和背内侧前额叶(dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, DMPFC; 彭苏浩等, 2019; Andrews-Hanna, 2012), 并且该结果在Meyer等人(2012)的研究中也进一步得到了证实。然而, 两种不同的排斥经历方式对个体脑区的激活也存在差别, 在经历直接排斥时, 个体的前扣带回(Anterior Cingulate Cortex, ACC)激活程度更高(Eisenberger, 2015), 且背侧前扣带回(dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex, dACC)和前脑岛(insula, AI)等也有不同程度的激活(Jun, 2018); 而经历替代性排斥情境时, 这些脑区的激活却存在着个体间的差异性, 即只有高共情能力的个体在经历替代性排斥时才会激活dACC和AI等脑区(Masten et al., 2011)。除此之外, 研究还发现, 当观察排斥的对象从陌生人转变为亲近的朋友时, dACC等区域也表现出一定程度的激活(赵祁伟, 刘和珺, 王琦, 刘拓, 2019; Meyer et al., 2012)。

纵观以往研究发现, 关于对替代性排斥在神经影像学方面的探索, 其着眼点主要锚定在观察者的共情系统上。为了进一步探究共情与替代性排斥的关系, 研究者将共情系统分为不同的子系统进行了更深层次的研究。首先, 从共情的认知系统出发, 个体在经历替代性排斥时激活的的脑区主要包括MPFC、DMPFC、额下回(inferior frontal gyrus, IFG )、颞上沟(posterior superior temporal gyrus, pSTS)、后扣带回(posterior cingulate cortex, PCC)以及颞部顶骨连接部位(temporal parietal junction, TPJ)等(Beeney, Franklin Jr, Levy, & Adams Jr, 2011; Frith & Frith, 2006; Mitchell, Banaji, & MacRae, 2005); 其次, 从共情的情感系统出发, 个体在经历替代性排斥时激活的脑区主要包括 AI、dACC和杏仁核(amygdala)等(史燕伟 等, 2015; Lamm et al., 2011)。

4 经历替代性排斥对个体产生影响的理论解释

4.1 排斥觉察系统理论

人类拥有一种监测排斥或排斥环境的觉察系统(Wesselmann et al., 2009)。与其他的进化系统一样, 排斥觉察系统也是一种保护个体免受威胁的适应系统, 而且, 这种适应系统具有自动化和灵敏性的特点, 即它会不断扫描可能发生排斥或正在发生排斥的环境, 只要扫描到环境中有一点点被排斥的迹象, 脑区内应对社会痛苦的神经机制——dACC就会自动激活(Kawamoto et al., 2012), 疼痛警报随之将个体的注意力引导到排斥的根源和背景上, 以此来提示个体调用认知资源尽可能地阻止或中断这种威胁。

排斥觉察系统理论(ostracism detection system theory, ODST)认为, 人类拥有的一套能够迅速觉察排斥线索和排斥信息的编码, 可以帮助个体尽可能阻止或中断潜在的排斥威胁, 并且, 如果在无法避免的情况下, 也会帮助个体准备好防御其有害后果的措施(Kerr & Levine, 2008; Spoor & Williams, 2007)。这是因为排斥觉察系统具有高度灵敏性的特点, 即使轻微的排斥暗示(如忽视)也能使监测它的脑区激活, 与明显的排斥(如拒绝)所激活的脑区一样, 也会催促个体立即做出反应, 以防备接下来发生明显排斥时可能暗含的潜在高成本(Wesselmann et al., 2013)。如此看来, 只要个体在环境中觉察到被排斥的迹象, 排斥觉察系统就会自动引发痛苦的感觉。然而, 随着研究的深入, 研究者们对排斥觉察系统有了更深层次的认识, 即排斥觉察系统不仅是在个体亲身经历排斥时才会被激活, 而且在个体观察排斥情境时也会被激活, 因此, 在替代性排斥的研究初期, 研究者们就用排斥觉察系统对遭受替代性排斥的个体所出现的反应进行解释(Wesselmann et al., 2009, 2013), 他们认为, 观察他人遭受排斥的情境, 同样会使观察者接收到排斥觉察系统发出的预警信号, 进而对观察者的基本需求和情绪产生一定的影响(Wesselmann et al., 2009)。

4.2 多元动机模型理论

多元动机模型理论(multimotive model theory, MMT)认为, 被排斥者的即时反应是相似的, 随后才出现不同的行为, 而对排斥事件的解释影响着个体究竟会出现何种行为反应(程苏, 刘璐, 郑涌, 2011; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009)。由此可见, 排斥觉察系统理论是对个体遭受排斥后基本需求和情绪变化的解释, 而多元动机模型理论则是对个体遭受排斥后行为反应的解释。

在替代性排斥的情境中, 经历替代性排斥的个体会表现出想要与他人亲近的行为(Marinović et al., 2017; Over & Carpenter, 2009; Song et al., 2015)、对受排斥者做出补偿性行为(Paolini et al., 2017; Wesselmann et al., 2013)、对排斥实施者做出攻击性行为(Yang, Xin, & Zhao, 2020)。首先, 个体会表现出想要亲近他人的行为, 因为经历替代性排斥的个体也会感觉到周围温度降低, 所以, 他们想要寻求一种温暖的环境来缓解自身感到的这种不适, 而研究表明, 身体上的亲近程度与人际关系的温暖程度呈正相关, 即身体上与一个人越接近, 人们就会感觉到周围的温度越高(Ijzerman & Semin, 2010; Williams & Bargh, 2008)。于是, 替代性排斥提高了个体寻求人际温暖的必要性, 即经历替代性排斥的个体, 会主动表现出想要与他人亲近的行为, 来缓解自身的基本需求受阻和消极情绪体验。为此, 依据多元动机模型理论, 可以将排斥事件解释为:个体知觉到了观察排斥也会给自身的需求和情绪带来损失, 想通过与他人亲近的行为来达到这种关系的修复。其次, 经历替代性排斥的个体会对受排斥者做出补偿行为和对排斥实施者做出攻击行为, 虽然补偿行为和攻击行为是完全相反的两种行为倾向, 但是在观察者的理念中, 这两种行为都可归结为对不公平排斥情境的合理反应(Wesselmann et al., 2013)。观察者希望借助这种干预形式, 给受排斥者提供心理上的支持, 减少受排斥者负面情绪和提高受排斥者的自尊(Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, & Salmivalli, 2011); 并且, 向排斥实施者做出攻击行为, 也是对排斥实施者的一种警告(Wesselmann et al., 2009), 为此, 依据多元动机模型理论, 就可以将排斥事件解释为排斥是不公平的。

4.3 道德归因理论

道德归因理论(moral attribution theory, MAT)同样解释了个体经历替代性排斥后的不同行为反应, 与多元动机模型理论不同的是, 道德归因理论侧重个体在观察排斥情境时, 对排斥实施者的潜在动机做出归因, 然后对谁应该受到谴责做出道德判断(Rudert et al., 2018)。由此, 便出现了两种排斥的归因方式:其一, 将排斥情境归因于排斥实施者的惩罚动机, 在这种情况下, 个体将排斥判定为可以接受的行为, 他们可能在随后的活动中支持排斥实施者来一同贬低受排斥者。Wesselmann等人(2013)的研究为惩罚性排斥提供了证据, 他们的研究结果表明, 当受排斥者的掷球速度比其他玩家掷球速度慢时, 观察者对先前被排斥个体的支持也会降低, 具体表现在, 在接下来的掷球游戏中, 观察者不会将球投向受排斥者。从维护社会规范的角度来说, 惩罚性排斥被认为是一种公平的行为, 这种排斥是对受排斥者先前规范偏差的合理制裁(Ditrich & Sassenberg, 2016; Kerr et al., 2009)。其二, 将排斥归因于排斥实施者的恶意动机, 在这种情况下, 排斥会被判定为一种不恰当、不可接受的行为(Rudert & Greifeneder, 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2013), 因此, 观察排斥情境的个体会对受排斥者做出补偿行为, 即向受排斥个体投掷更多的球(Wesselmann et al., 2013)或分配更多的金钱(Paolini et al., 2017)。之所以做出这样的行为, 是因为观察者认为, 排斥实施者对受排斥者可能存在某种偏见或歧视, 使受排斥个体遭到不公正的待遇, 因此则会贬低排斥实施者, 同情受排斥者。

4.4 社会认同理论

社会认同理论(social identity theory, SIT)认为, 在日常生活中, 个体会将自己自发地归属于某个群体, 并且在认知、情感和行为方面对自己所属的群体产生认同(Turner & Tajfel, 1986)。研究发现, 当内群体的地位和权利受到外群体的威胁时, 如感知到内群体成员受到外群体成员的不公平对待后, 内群体成员会更多地将外群体的这种排斥归因于偏见, 从而激发了内群体成员的群体认同感, 进而更容易对造成伤害的外群体成员产生报复性的攻击行为(Goode & Smith, 2016; Molina, Tropp, & Goode, 2016; Sjöström & Gollwitzer, 2015)。由此可见, 社会认同理论、多元动机模型理论和归因理论都是在解释个体遭受替代性排斥后的行为反应, 只是社会认同理论更多地将注意力集中在群际层面上。

不同群体在文化、信仰和价值观等方面存在较大的差异, 群体身份有着不可改变性(Zhang, Zheng, Liu, Zhao, & Sun, 2014)。因此, 个体在观察到内群体成员遭受排斥后, 不太可能对外群体产生认同感。所以, 与替代性报复行为的本质一样(McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013), 个体在经历替代性排斥后产生攻击行为, 可以被看作是一种适应性的本能行为(McCullough et al., 2013)。一方面, 从“小我”来看, 个体在观察到内群体成员遭受外群体排斥时产生攻击行为, 是为了维护自身的利益。作为内群体成员, 如果在面对外群体伤害内群体其他成员时不作为, 可能被贴上“懦弱”, 甚至“背叛”的标签, 相应地也会剥夺其应该享有的群体权利; 与之相对的是, 如果内群体成员遭受到外群体成员的伤害时做出了必要的还击, 就会让其获得来自群体其他成员的认同、赞赏甚至更多的合作机会(艾娟, 2017; Nawata & Yamaguchi, 2013)。另一方面, 从“大我”来看, 个体在观察到内群体成员遭受外群体排斥时产生攻击行为, 是为了维护整个群体的利益。研究表明, 当个体察觉到外群体成员对内群体成员做出伤害行为时, 会自发地做出攻击性的报复行为, 即使让自身付出代价也在所不惜(Hugh-Jones & Leroch, 2013)。从一定程度上讲, 个体在观察到内群体成员遭受外群体排斥时做出攻击行为, 就是为了警告外群体的成员:我们“不是好惹的”, 惹了我们就要付出“代价” (Gollwitzer et al., 2014), 这样不仅可以震慑外群体, 使内群体成员避免再次受到强度更大的不平等对待, 而且, 对一些“虎视眈眈”的其他外群体, 也起到了很好的威慑作用(艾娟, 2017)。

4.5 共情理论

排斥觉察系统理论可以对个体经历替代排斥后基本需求和情绪变化进行解释, 多元动机模型理论、道德归因理论、社会认同理论可以说明个体经历替代性排斥后的行为反应, 而共情理论(empathy theory, ET)则可以同时解释经历替代性排斥个体的基本需求、情绪、行为以及神经网络发生的变化(Wesselmann et al., 2009), 因为共情系统是包含认知、情感和行为的一个动态系统, 并且, 这三个动态系统之间可以进行自由的转换(丁凤琴, 陆朝晖, 2016; 刘聪慧 等, 2009)。共情理论的工作模式是, 当觉察到他人面临困境时, 首先被激活的就是共情的认知-情感系统, 因此, 观察者会产生与他人相同的情绪情感, 随之激活的是情感-行为系统, 即观察者对他人的情绪状况进行感知和评估, 当发现他人需要帮助时则可能表现出一定的行为(丁凤琴, 陆朝晖, 2016; 闫志英 等, 2012; Beeney et al., 2011; Frith & Frith, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2005)。

以往研究表明, 观察他人经历疼痛的情境会引发观察者自发的躯体反应, 类似于那些在自我体验中引发的反应一样, 这不仅适用于身体疼痛(Avenanti, Sirigu, & Aglioti, 2010), 也适用于排斥造成的社会疼痛(史燕伟 等, 2015; Masten et al., 2013)。因此, 当个体观察到排斥情境时, 掌控共情反应的认知-情感系统的脑区会被激活, 激发观察者回忆起自己曾经被排斥的经历, 继而引起其情感上的共鸣, 所以经历替代性排斥个体的归属需求也会降低, 并增加其消极情绪体验(Giesen & Echterhoff, 2018); 紧接着, 掌控共情反应的情感-行为系统脑区也被激活, 即观察者会对排斥者和受排斥者的情绪状况进行感知和评估, 对排斥情境的可接受程度做出判断(Rudert et al., 2017), 如果确实是因为恶意动机的排斥, 就会对受排斥者做出补偿行为(Wesselmann et al., 2013)或对排斥实施者做出攻击行为(Rudert & Greifeneder, 2019); 如果只研究遭受替代排斥个体本身的反应, 则其会表现出想要与他人亲近的行为(Paolini et al., 2017; Marinović et al., 2017; Over & Carpenter, 2009; Song et al., 2015)。

5 总结与展望

本文从行为研究视角和神经影像学视角两个方面入手, 梳理了替代性排斥对个体的影响, 及其对个体产生影响的理论解释。结合以往研究发现, 替代性排斥对个体的影响与个体对排斥情境的理解有着不可分割的联系, 并且, 这种联系使得替代性排斥的理论研究对社会心理服务工作建设具有参考价值, 例如, 在人际层面, 替代性排斥的研究提示我们, 观察排斥情境的个体需要拥有公正无私的品质, 才能更好地理解排斥行为的目的, 从而避免“助纣为虐”, 所以, 社会主流文化应加强培养个体公平、公正的道德观念; 在群际层面, 替代性排斥的研究可以为预防和杜绝群体性事件的发生提供理论指导和解决思路, 即国家和政府应该在以法律制裁为辅的同时, 加大宣传“文明、和谐”的社会主义核心价值观, 培养公民积极正向的社会心态(俞国良, 谢天, 2018)。因此, 不论从理论层面, 还是实践层面, 替代性排斥都有其研究的必要性。所以, 虽然替代性排斥的研究已取得了丰硕的成果, 但其作为一种特殊的排斥形式, 未来仍存在一定的研究空间。

第一, 个体特质共情的差异为替代性排斥研究提供新的思路。早期研究认为, 遭受替代性排斥的个体也会产生痛苦的体验, 这种痛苦的体验来源于他们的共情能力(Decety & Jackson, 2004)。研究表明, 不仅不同文化背景下个体的共情能力存在差异(Chentsova-Dutton & Tsai, 2010), 同一文化背景下个体的共情能力也存在差异, 这种差异被称为个体的特质共情(Davis, 1983)。特质共情是指一种稳定的人格特质, 不同的个体在同一情境中的共情能力高低有别, 所以, 探究个体的特质共情是解释经历替代性排斥个体不同反应的一个切入点。因此, 缺乏共情能力的个体, 如自恋型人格障碍患者, 反社会人格障碍患者在遭受替代性排斥时, 是否也会出现基本需求、情绪、行为和神经影像的变化, 未来研究可以以缺乏共情能力的患者为研究被试, 对替代性排斥进行更深层次的研究。

第二, 复杂的排斥情境为替代性排斥研究提出新的要求。首先, 随着科技的发展, 人们越来越依赖使用微博、微信、QQ等网络社交软件进行交流和沟通。因此, 网络排斥导致的社会问题日益严重。研究表明, 遭受网络排斥的个体, 情绪系统会在网络排斥情境的影响下产生疏离感, 这种疏离感会加剧个体人际需求匮乏的程度, 而为了弥补现实生活中的人际需求, 同时也为了获得别人的关注, 受排斥者往往会采取一些极端的攻击行为来满足畸形的人际需求(金童林 等, 2019)。然而, 处于双方利益之外观察网络排斥情境的个体, 也在一定程度上表现出疏离感, 例如, 在网上占据道德高点发表个人正义感的“键盘侠”; 不论偶像对错, 处处都想维护偶像的“脑残粉”; 曲解原述逻辑, 以反驳他人为乐的“杠精”等等。在这种疏离感的影响下, 在网络上观察到排斥情境的个体, 其基本需求、情绪、行为以及神经网络的变化是否与在现实中观察到排斥情境一样呢?其次, 综合以往实证研究发现, 替代性排斥对个体造成的影响大都是在崇尚“理性”、崇尚“个人文化”的西方背景下得出的; 然而, 以崇尚“仁爱、修睦”的儒学文化(李福禄, 2017)为代表的中国个体, 对情境的理解往往更为感性和复杂, 因此, 在遭受替代性排斥时, 其基本需求、情绪、行为以及神经网络的变化是否会出现东西方的差异?所以, 未来研究还可以从这些方面继续探讨替代性排斥对个体造成的影响。

第三, 特殊的排斥形式为替代性排斥的理论解释提出新的构想。替代性排斥对个体的影响通过排斥觉察系统理论、多元动机模型理论、道德归因理论、社会认同理论、共情理论等得到了较好的解释, 为替代性排斥研究成果的发展奠定了坚实的基础。但是, 不可忽视的是, 替代性排斥对个体的影响与排斥情境之间的特殊性, 即观察者观察到直接排斥, 并且对排斥情境做出道德判断才会出现不同的反应。而基于职场排斥的研究发现, 观察者观察到职场排斥并做出反应取决于两个阶段, 即对自我利益的威胁性和遭受排斥的应得性(Li et al., 2019), 所以, 观察者在职场排斥中的干预意愿可能受到观察者的价值观、个性特点以及排斥事件的性质、相关性等多种因素的影响(毛伊娜 等, 2019)。鉴于此, 研究者们构想了新的动态理论——社会平衡理论, 来检视这些因素与职场排斥中观察者干预意愿的关系(研究内容二, 毛伊娜 等, 2019)。如果这一理论构想能够解释观察者在职场排斥中的反应, 那么, 根据职场排斥中对观察者角色的研究与替代性排斥研究的相通性, 社会平衡理论也可被衍生到替代性排斥的理论解释中, 因此, 未来研究也可以利用社会平衡理论来构建替代性排斥对个体影响的研究方案, 以及用社会平衡理论来解释个体经历替代性排斥后的一些反应。

参考文献

艾娟. (2017).

真的是“冤有头债有主”吗? 基于群体冲突的替代性报复

心理科学进展, 25(11), 1964-1971.

[本文引用: 3]

程苏, 刘璐, 郑涌. (2011).

社会排斥的研究范式与理论模型

心理科学进展, 19(6), 905-915.

[本文引用: 1]

丁凤琴, 陆朝晖. (2016).

共情与亲社会行为关系的元分析

心理科学进展, 24(8), 1159-1174.

[本文引用: 2]

胡圣楠, 成志娟, 窦东徽, 张红川, 翁学东. (2018).

他人积极情绪对自我控制资源的替代恢复及机制

心理与行为研究, 16(1), 45-50.

[本文引用: 1]

金童林, 乌云特娜, 张璐, 李鑫, 黄明明, 刘振会, 姜永志. (2019).

网络社会排斥对大学生网络攻击行为及传统攻击行为的影响:疏离感的中介作用

心理科学, 42(5), 1106-1112.

[本文引用: 1]

李福禄. (2017).

儒学的传承与创新

人文天下, (1), 45-48.

[本文引用: 1]

廖玉玲, 洪开荣, 张亮. (2015).

第三方惩罚机制与双边合作秩序的维持——来自房地产征用补偿的实验证据

系统工程理论与实践, 35(11), 2798-2808.

[本文引用: 1]

刘聪慧, 王永梅, 俞国良, 王拥军. (2009).

共情的相关理论评述及动态模型探新

心理科学进展, 17(5), 964-972.

[本文引用: 1]

毛伊娜, 潘然, 张伟. (2019).

构建职场排斥三方互动的理论模型——社会平衡理论的视角

心理科学进展, 28(2), 191-205.

[本文引用: 2]

彭苏浩, 陶丹, 冷玥, 邓慧华. (2019).

社会排斥的心理行为特征及其脑机制

心理科学进展, 27(9), 1656-1666.

[本文引用: 3]

申继亮, 陈勃, 王大华. (2000).

成人期基本认知能力的发展状况研究

心理学报, 32(1), 54-58.

[本文引用: 1]

史燕伟, 徐富明, 王伟, 李燕, 刘程浩. (2015).

感同身受的社会痛苦: 来自神经影像学的证据

心理科学进展, 23(9), 1608-1616.

[本文引用: 3]

谢东杰, 苏彦捷. (2019).

第三方惩罚的演化与认知机制

心理科学, 42(1), 216-222.

[本文引用: 1]

闫志英, 张奇勇, 杨晓岚. (2012).

共情对助人倾向的影响: 人格的调节作用

中国临床心理学杂志, 20(6), 858-860.

[本文引用: 1]

杨晓莉, 魏丽. (2017).

社会排斥总是消极的吗?——影响排斥不同行为反应的因素

中国临床心理学杂志, 25(6), 1179-1183+1159.

[本文引用: 1]

杨晓莉, 信同童, 毛玉翠. (2019).

社会排斥的研究范式述评及其对结果的影响

中国临床心理学杂志, 27(2), 237-241.

[本文引用: 1]

俞国良, 谢天. (2018).

社会转型: 社会心理服务与社会心态培育

河北学刊, 38(2), 175-181.

[本文引用: 1]

赵祁伟, 刘和珺, 王琦, 刘拓. (2019).

社会排斥的神经机制: 基于fMRI研究的元分析

中国临床心理学杂志, 27(3), 436-442.

[本文引用: 1]

Ackerman, J. M., Goldstein, N. J., Shapiro, J. R., & Bargh, J. A. (2009).

You wear me out: The vicarious depletion of self-control

Psychological Science, 20(3), 326-332.

URL     PMID:19207692      [本文引用: 1]

Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2012).

The brain’s default network and its adaptive role in internal mentation

The Neuroscientist, 18(3), 251-270.

DOI:10.1177/1073858411403316      URL     PMID:21677128      [本文引用: 1]

During the many idle moments that comprise daily life, the human brain increases its activity across a set of midline and lateral cortical brain regions known as the

Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010).

Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain

Current Biology, 20(11), 1018-1022.

URL     PMID:20537539      [本文引用: 1]

Bach, P., Frischknecht, U., Bungert, M., Karl, D., Vollmert, C., Vollstädt-Klein, S., ... Hermann, D. (2019).

Effects of social exclusion and physical pain in chronic opioid maintenance treatment: FMRI correlates

European Neuropsychopharmacology, 29(2), 291-305.

DOI:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.11.1109      URL     PMID:30497842      [本文引用: 1]

Opioids interact with systems processing pain and social stimuli. Both systems are crucial for responding to strains of everyday life and both are linked to relapse risk in opioid-dependent patients. The investigation of those systems seems essential to better understand opioid addiction as a whole. 17 patients on opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) and 21 healthy individuals underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) social ball-tossing (Cyberball) paradigm simulating social inclusion and exclusion. In addition, painful and non-painful temperature stimuli were applied, in order to test pain sensitivity. Patients on OMT showed reduced pain sensitivity. Subjective pain was higher after social exclusion compared to social inclusion trials. In comparison to healthy controls, OMT patients felt less included and more excluded during inclusion and control conditions, and equally excluded during the social exclusion condition. Feelings of exclusion during the inclusion trials were associated with higher scores on the childhood trauma questionnaire. Across all conditions, OMT patients demonstrated decreased fMRI activation in the bilateral superior and middle occipital and bilateral cunei, the lingual gyri, as well as in the left fusiform gyrus (whole brain FWE-corrected). Comparing social exclusion and inclusion conditions, healthy individuals showed significant activation in brain areas related to social feedback and emotion processing, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, the insula and fusiform gyrus, whereas OMT patients showed no difference across conditions. As negative social affect is a potential trigger for relapse, patients might benefit from therapeutic strategies that enhance social integration.

Beeney, J. E., Franklin Jr, R. G., Levy, K. N., & Adams Jr, R. B. (2011).

I feel your pain: Emotional closeness modulates neural responses to empathically experienced rejection

Social Neuroscience, 6(4), 369-376.

DOI:10.1080/17470919.2011.557245      URL     PMID:21400358      [本文引用: 2]

Empathy is generally thought of as the ability to share the emotional experiences of others. In scientific terms, this is usually operationalized as an ability to vicariously feel others' mental and emotional experiences. Supporting this account, research demonstrates that watching others experience physical pain activates similar brain regions to the actual experience of pain itself. First-hand experience of social rejection also activates this network. The current work extends these findings by examining whether the

Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., & Tsai, J. L. (2010).

Self-focused attention and emotional reactivity: The role of culture

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 98(3), 507-519.

URL     PMID:20175627      [本文引用: 1]

Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994).

Affective causes and consequences of social information processing

Handbook of Social Cognition, 1, 323-417.

[本文引用: 1]

Coyne, S. M., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Gundersen, N. C. (2011).

Is viewing ostracism on television distressing?

The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 213-217.

URL     PMID:21675176      [本文引用: 1]

Davis, M. H. (1983).

Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

[本文引用: 1]

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004).

The functional architecture of human empathy

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.

DOI:10.1177/1534582304267187      URL     PMID:15537986      [本文引用: 1]

Empathy accounts for the naturally occurring subjective experience of similarity between the feelings expressed by self and others without loosing sight of whose feelings belong to whom. Empathy involves not only the affective experience of the other person's actual or inferred emotional state but also some minimal recognition and understanding of another's emotional state. In light of multiple levels of analysis ranging from developmental psychology, social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and clinical neuropsychology, this article proposes a model of empathy that involves parallel and distributed processing in a number of dissociable computational mechanisms. Shared neural representations, self-awareness, mental flexibility, and emotion regulation constitute the basic macrocomponents of empathy, which are underpinned by specific neural systems. This functional model may be used to make specific predictions about the various empathy deficits that can be encountered in different forms of social and neurological disorders.

DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006).

Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 1-15.

URL     PMID:16834476      [本文引用: 1]

DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W. (2011).

Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity

Emotion, 11(3), 623-636.

URL     PMID:21668113      [本文引用: 1]

Ditrich, L., & Sassenberg, K. (2016).

It’s either you or me! Impact of deviations on social exclusion and leaving

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5), 630-652.

[本文引用: 1]

Eisenberger, N. I. (2015).

Social pain and the brain: Controversies, questions, and where to go from here

Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 601-629.

[本文引用: 1]

Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006).

The neural basis of mentalizing

Neuron, 50(4), 531-534.

DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001      URL     PMID:16701204      [本文引用: 2]

Mentalizing refers to our ability to read the mental states of other agents and engages many neural processes. The brain's mirror system allows us to share the emotions of others. Through perspective taking, we can infer what a person currently believes about the world given their point of view. Finally, the human brain has the unique ability to represent the mental states of the self and the other and the relationship between these mental states, making possible the communication of ideas.

Giesen, A., & Echterhoff, G. (2018).

Do I really feel your pain? Comparing the effects of observed and personal ostracism

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 550-561.

URL     PMID:29231078      [本文引用: 5]

Gollwitzer, M., Skitka, L. J., Wisneski, D., Sjöström, A., Liberman, P., Nazir, S. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2014).

Vicarious revenge and the death of Osama bin Laden

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 604-616.

URL     PMID:24553257      [本文引用: 1]

Goode, C., & Smith, H. J. (2016).

Retribution or restoration: Symbolic justice concerns shape how victim group members react to intergroup transgressions

Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 105-109.

[本文引用: 1]

Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Bornstein, G. (2010).

Relative deprivation and intergroup competition

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 685-700.

[本文引用: 1]

Hugh-Jones, D., & Leroch, M. (2013).

Intergroup revenge: A laboratory experiment on the causes

SSRN Electronic Journal, 36, 137-146.

[本文引用: 1]

Ijzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2010).

Temperature perceptions as a ground for social proximity

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 867-873.

[本文引用: 1]

Jun, L. (2018).

The neural basis of and a common neural circuitry in different types of pro-social behavior

Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 859.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00859      URL     PMID:29922197      [本文引用: 2]

Pro-social behaviors are voluntary behaviors that benefit other people or society as a whole, such as charitable donations, cooperation, trust, altruistic punishment, and fairness. These behaviors have been widely described through non self-interest decision-making in behavioral experimental studies and are thought to be increased by social preference motives. Importantly, recent studies using a combination of neuroimaging and brain stimulation, designed to reveal the neural mechanisms of pro-social behaviors, have found that a wide range of brain areas, specifically the prefrontal cortex, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala, are correlated or causally related with pro-social behaviors. In this review, we summarize the research on the neural basis of various kinds of pro-social behaviors and describe a common shared neural circuitry of these pro-social behaviors. We introduce several general ways in which experimental economics and neuroscience can be combined to develop important contributions to understanding social decision-making and pro-social behaviors. Future research should attempt to explore the neural circuitry between the frontal lobes and deeper brain areas.

Katharina, R. S., Ilona, P., Lackner, H. K., Manuela, P., Weiss, E. M., & Aydin, N. (2018).

Aggressive behavior after social exclusion is linked with the spontaneous initiation of more action-oriented coping immediately following the exclusion episode

Physiology & Behavior, 195, 142-150.

URL     PMID:30098945      [本文引用: 1]

Kawamoto, T., Onoda, K., Nakashima, K. I., Nittono, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Ura, M. (2012).

Is dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation in response to social exclusion due to expectancy violation? An fMRI study

Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, 4, 11.

URL     PMID:22866035      [本文引用: 1]

Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008).

The detection of social exclusion: evolution and beyond

Group Dynamics Theory Research & Practice, 12(1), 39-52.

[本文引用: 1]

Kerr, N. L., Rumble, A. C., Park, E. S., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Parks, C. D., Gallucci, M., & van Lange, P. A. (2009).

“How many bad apples does it take to spoil the whole barrel?”: Social exclusion and toleration for bad apples

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 603-613.

DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.017      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011).

Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain

Neuroimage, 54(3), 2492-2502.

URL     PMID:20946964      [本文引用: 2]

Legate, N., DeHaan, C., & Ryan, R. (2015).

Righting the wrong: Reparative coping after going along with ostracism

The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(5), 471-482.

DOI:10.1080/00224545.2015.1062352      URL     PMID:26267128      [本文引用: 1]

Most of the focus within the ostracism literature concerns the negative effects on the ostracized and how they cope following ostracism. Research is now beginning to illuminate negative psychological effects for ostracizers, yet no studies to date have examined their coping responses. This study continues this line of inquiry focusing on experiences of going along with ostracism, both by employing a face-to-face interaction and by exploring prosocial versus antisocial coping reactions in ostracizers. Results reveal that compared to those in a neutral condition, compliant ostracizers suffered because ostracizing someone else frustrated their psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness. Further, when given the chance, ostracizers were more inclusive of the person they previously ostracized. Discussion considers important avenues for future research as well as implications of results.

Li, X., McAllister, D. J., Ilies, R., & Gloor, J. L. (2019).

Schadenfreude: A counternormative observer response to workplace mistreatment

Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 360-376.

[本文引用: 1]

Marinović, V., Wahl, S., & Träuble, B. (2017).

“Next to you”—Young children sit closer to a person following vicarious ostracism

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 156, 179-185.

URL     PMID:28063604      [本文引用: 3]

Masten, C. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Pfeifer, J. H., & Dapretto, M. (2013).

Neural responses to witnessing peer rejection after being socially excluded: FMRI as a window into adolescents' emotional processing

Developmental Science, 16(5), 743-759.

DOI:10.1111/desc.12056      URL     PMID:24033579      [本文引用: 2]

During adolescence, concerns about peer rejection and acceptance become increasingly common. Adolescents regularly experience peer rejection firsthand and witness these behaviors among their peers. In the current study, neuroimaging techniques were employed to conduct a preliminary investigation of the affective and cognitive processes involved in witnessing peer acceptance and rejection - specifically when these witnessed events occur in the immediate aftermath of a firsthand experience with rejection. During an fMRI scan, 23 adolescents underwent a simulated experience of firsthand peer rejection. Then, immediately following this experience they watched as another adolescent was ostensibly first accepted and then rejected. Findings indicated that in the immediate aftermath of being rejected by peers, adolescents displayed neural activity consistent with distress when they saw another peer being accepted, and neural activity consistent with emotion regulation and mentalizing (e.g. perspective-taking) processes when they saw another peer being rejected. Furthermore, individuals displaying a heightened sensitivity to firsthand rejection were more likely to show neural activity consistent with distress when observing a peer being accepted. Findings are discussed in terms of how witnessing others being accepted or rejected relates to adolescents' interpretations of both firsthand and observed experiences with peers. In addition, the potential impact that witnessed events might have on the broader perpetuation of bullying at this age is also considered.

Masten, C. L., Morelli, S. A., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011).

An fMRI investigation of empathy for ‘social pain’and subsequent prosocial behavior

Neuroimage, 55(1), 381-388.

URL     PMID:21122817      [本文引用: 2]

Mccullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013).

Putting revenge and forgiveness in an evolutionary context

Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 36(1), 41-58.

URL     PMID:23560335      [本文引用: 2]

Mendes, W. B., Major, B., Mccoy, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008).

How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(2), 278-291.

URL     PMID:18211177      [本文引用: 1]

Meyer, M. L., Masten, C. L., Ma, Y., Wang, C., Shi, Z., Eisenberger, N. I., & Han, S. (2012).

Empathy for the social suffering of friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of brain activation

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(4), 446-454.

URL     PMID:22355182      [本文引用: 2]

Mitchell, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & MacRae, C. N. (2005).

The link between social cognition and self-referential thought in the medial prefrontal cortex

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1306-1315.

DOI:10.1162/0898929055002418      URL     PMID:16197685      [本文引用: 2]

The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been implicated in seemingly disparate cognitive functions, such as understanding the minds of other people and processing information about the self. This functional overlap would be expected if humans use their own experiences to infer the mental states of others, a basic postulate of simulation theory. Neural activity was measured while participants attended to either the mental or physical aspects of a series of other people. To permit a test of simulation theory's prediction that inferences based on self-reflection should only be made for similar others, targets were subsequently rated for their degree of similarity to self. Parametric analyses revealed a region of the ventral mPFC--previously implicated in self-referencing tasks--in which activity correlated with perceived self/other similarity, but only for mentalizing trials. These results suggest that self-reflection may be used to infer the mental states of others when they are sufficiently similar to self.

Molina, L. E., Tropp, L. R., & Goode, C. (2016).

Reflections on prejudice and intergroup relations

Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 120-124.

[本文引用: 1]

Nawata, K., & Yamaguchi, H. (2013).

Intergroup retaliation and intra-group praise gain: The effect of expected cooperation from the in-group on intergroup vicarious retribution

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(4), 279-285.

[本文引用: 1]

Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., & Williams, K. D. (2012).

Ostracism in everyday life

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(2), 91-104.

[本文引用: 1]

Novelli, D., Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009).

Come together: Two studies concerning the impact of group relations on personal space

British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 223-236.

[本文引用: 1]

Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2009).

Priming third‐party ostracism increases affiliative imitation in children

Developmental Science, 12(3), F1-F8.

URL     PMID:19371357      [本文引用: 3]

Paolini, D., Alparone, F. R., Cardone, D., van Beest, I., & Merla, A. (2016).

“The face of ostracism”: The impact of the social categorization on the thermal facial responses of the target and the observer

Acta Psychologica, 163, 65-73.

URL     PMID:26613387      [本文引用: 2]

Paolini, D., Pagliaro, S., Alparone, F. R., Marotta, F., & van Beest, I. (2017).

On vicarious ostracism. Examining the mediators of observers’ reactions towards the target and the sources of ostracism

Social Influence, 12(4), 117-127.

[本文引用: 6]

Rudert, S. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2016).

When it’s okay that I don’t play: Social norms and the situated construal of social exclusion

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 955-969.

URL     PMID:27229676      [本文引用: 2]

Rudert, S. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2019).

Observing ostracism: How observers interpret and respond to ostracism situations

In S. C. Rudert, R. Greifeneder, K. D. Williams (Eds.), Current Directions in Ostracism, Social Exclusion and Rejection (pp.136-154). Routledge.

Rudert, S. C., Reutner, L., Greifeneder, R., & Walker, M. (2017).

Faced with exclusion: Perceived facial warmth and competence influence moral judgments of social exclusion

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 101-112.

[本文引用: 2]

Rudert, S. C., Ruf, S., & Greifeneder, R. (2019).

Whom to Punish? How observers sanction norm-violating behavior in ostracism situations

European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 376-391.

[本文引用: 1]

Rudert, S. C., Sutter, D., Corrodi, V. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2018).

Who’s to blame? Dissimilarity as a cue in moral judgments of observed ostracism episodes

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 31-53.

URL     PMID:29911881      [本文引用: 1]

Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011).

Victims and their defenders: A dyadic approach

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 144-151.

DOI:10.1177/0165025410378068      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009).

The social neuroscience of empathy

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81-96.

[本文引用: 2]

Sjöström, A., & Gollwitzer, M. (2015).

Displaced revenge: Can revenge taste “sweet” if it aims at a different target?

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 191-202.

[本文引用: 1]

Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009).

Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model

Psychological Review, 116(2), 365-383.

URL     PMID:19348546      [本文引用: 1]

Song, R., Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2015).

Children draw more affiliative pictures following priming with third-party ostracism

Developmental Psychology, 51(6), 831-840.

URL     PMID:25915591      [本文引用: 3]

Spoor, J., & Williams, K. D. (2007).

The evolution of an ostracism detection system

Evolution and the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Cognition, 279-292.

[本文引用: 1]

Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1986).

The social identity theory of intergroup behavior

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 7-24.

[本文引用: 1]

Welker, K. M., Oberleitner, D. E., Cain, S., & Carré, J. M. (2013).

Upright and left out: posture moderates the effects of social exclusion on mood and threats to basic needs

European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(5), 355-361.

[本文引用: 1]

Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009).

“I feel your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1308-1311.

DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003      URL     [本文引用: 10]

Wesselmann, E. D., Williams, K. D., & Hales, A. H. (2013).

Vicarious ostracism

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(7), 153.

[本文引用: 11]

Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013).

When do we ostracize?

Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4(1), 108-115.

[本文引用: 2]

Will, G. J., Crone, E. A., van den Bos, W., & Güroğlu, B. (2013).

Acting on observed social exclusion: Developmental perspectives on punishment of excluders and compensation of victims

Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2236-2244.

DOI:10.1037/a0032299      URL     PMID:23544860      [本文引用: 1]

This study examined punishment of excluders and compensation of victims after observing an instance of social exclusion at various phases of adolescent development. Participants (n = 183; age 9 to 22 years) were first included in a virtual ball-tossing game, Cyberball, and then observed the exclusion of a peer. Subsequently, they played economic games in which they divided money between themselves and the including players, the excluders, and the victim. The results demonstrate a gradual age-related increase in money given to the victim from age 9 to 22 and a gradual decrease in money allocated to the excluders from age 9 to 16 with an increase in 22-year-olds. Affective perspective-taking predicted both compensation of the victim and punishment of the excluders. Taken together these results show that across adolescence individuals sacrifice an increasingly bigger share of their own resources to punish excluders and to compensate victims and that taking the perspective of the victim enhances these decisions.

Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008).

Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth

Science, 322(5901), 606-607.

DOI:10.1126/science.1162548      URL     PMID:18948544      [本文引用: 1]

Yang, X. L., Wei, L., Zhao, Q. H., & Liu, L. (2017).

Effects of intergroup exclusion on individual needs threat and behavior tendencies

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(5), 429-435.

URL     PMID:28816349      [本文引用: 1]

Yang, X. L., Xin, T. T., & Zhao, Q. H. (2020).

Effects of intergroup vicarious ostracism on individual prejudicial attributions and aggressive intentions

Spanish Journal of Psychology.

DOI:10.1017/SJP.2020.12      URL     PMID:32482182      [本文引用: 3]

Zhang, X. X., Zheng, J., Liu, L., Zhao, X., & Sun, X. M. (2014).

The effect of group boundary permeability on intergroup prejudice: The case of rural-to-urban migrants in China

Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 8(2), 53-61.

[本文引用: 1]

/


版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
地址:北京市朝阳区林萃路16号院 
邮编:100101 
电话:010-64850861 
E-mail:jinzhan@psych.ac.cn
备案编号:京ICP备10049795号-1 京公网安备110402500018号

本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发