Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (7): 980-994    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00980
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 社会公正对权威合法性的影响: 社会阶层的调节作用
 杨林川1,2;  马红宇1;  姜 海1,3;  梁 娟1;  齐 玲1
 (1青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室暨华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079) (2三峡大学高等教育研究所, 湖北 宜昌 443002) (3中共武汉市委党校, 武汉 430024)
 When do procedural justice and outcome justice interact to influence legitimacy of authorities? The moderating effect of social class
 YANG Linchuan1,2; MA Hongyu1; JIANG Hai1,3; LIANG Juan1; QI Ling1
(1 Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior (CCNU), Ministry of Education and School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China) (2 Research Institute of Higher Education, China Three Gorges university, Yichang 443002, China) (3 Party School of CPC Wuhan Committee, Wuhan 430079, China)
全文: PDF(1363 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  社会层面中的权威合法性研究是国内外学者和管理实践者近来关注的重要问题。而社会公正的两个维度——分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性的交互作用的结果并不一致。本研究基于解释水平理论, 提出社会阶层能调节分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性感知的交互作用, 并通过实验室研究和情境启动两种方法进行验证。结果发现对低阶层者来说, 无论是否程序公正, 分配公正能显著提高个体的权威合法性感知; 在分配公正和多得不公条件下, 程序公正显著降低权威合法性感知。对高阶层者来说, 分配公正能显著提高程序公正时的权威合法性感知; 程序公正能显著提高分配公正时的权威合法性感知。研究结果启示社会管理者在推行依法治国时应针对不同阶层民众的思维方式采取管理策略。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
杨林川
马红宇
姜海
梁娟
齐玲
关键词  权威合法性 社会阶层 程序公正 分配公正 解释水平理论    
Abstract: Much of recent attention has been directed toward legitimacy as an important source of power for authorities in societies. Studies of the origins of perceived legitimacy have focused on the influence and interactive effects of procedural and distributive justice. However, in many studies, the two-way interaction between outcome and procedure justice was found to be statistically non-significant. According to the Construal-Level Theory, the elevated ranks and resources of upper-class individuals would increase their perceived psychological distance from others, and this distance would lead to more abstract information processing. Thus, we suspected that upper-class individuals would value procedural justice information above perceive legitimacy, whereas lower-class individuals would give greater importance to issues of distributive justice. In this study, three experiments were conducted to examine this hypothesis. Two hundred and sixty undergraduate students participated in Experiment 1, and 241 adults participated in Experiment 2. Both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 used a 3×2×2 between-subjects design in a controlled laboratory setting. Firstly, the subjects took part in a manipulation of their relative social class. Then, the procedural justice was manipulated by a voice/ no-voice procedure. Additionally, the distributive justice was controlled through the distribution of lotteries. After the treatments, perceived legitimacy of authorities was measured. The three-way interaction between outcome, procedure, and social class was statistically significant, F (2, 248) = 3.12, p < 0.05, and ηp2 = 0.03. Three hundred and seventy undergraduate students participated in Experiment 3. They were assigned to upper/lower-class groups based on their family occupations and subjective SES. Then, they experienced the procedural and distributive justice in 6 different scenarios before their perceived legitimacy of the authority was measured. The three-way interaction between outcome, procedure, and social class was significant, F (2, 358) = 8.40, p < 0.05, and ηp2 = 0.05. The results of three experiments indicated that: (1) participants in a fair-outcome treatment condition perceived higher legitimacy than those who were in unfair outcome conditions. (2) lower-class participants assigned to a fair-outcome condition perceived authorities to be more legitimate than their counterparts in unfair outcome conditions in both voice and no-voice procedure condition. (3) lower-class participants perceived lower legitimacy when they assigned to voice (vs. no-voice) procedure condition in both fair and unfair outcome that the partner received a worse reward conditions. (4) upper-class participants who were in fair outcome condition perceived authorities to be more legitimate relative to their counterparts in other unfair outcome conditions in voice procedure condition. (5) upper-class participants in the voice procedure condition perceived the authorities to be more legitimate than their counterparts in no-voice procedure condition in the fair outcome setting. These results suggested that individuals’ social class influenced the interactive effects of procedural and distributive justice on perceived legitimacy. In particular, it was found that procedural justice exerted ironic influences on perceived legitimacy of lower-class individuals. Moreover, the study tried to demonstrate that social class would modulate the relationship of social justice and perceived legitimacy in the social domain. These findings were informative to the development of administrative strategies that would influence people from different social classes.
Key words legitimacy    social class    distributive justice    procedural justice    Construal-Level Theory
收稿日期: 2015-08-21      出版日期: 2017-05-26
ZTFLH:     
  B849:C91  
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金青年项目(31200795)、国家自然科学基金重大研究计划重点支持项目(91324201)、华中师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目(CCNU14Z02015和CCNU14Z02004)的资助。
通讯作者: 马红宇, E-mail: mahy@mail.ccnu.edu.cn     E-mail: E-mail: mahy@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
引用本文:   
杨林川, 马红宇, 姜海, 梁娟, 齐玲.  社会公正对权威合法性的影响: 社会阶层的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 980-994.
YANG Linchuan, MA Hongyu, JIANG Hai, LIANG Juan, QI Ling.  When do procedural justice and outcome justice interact to influence legitimacy of authorities? The moderating effect of social class. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 980-994.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00980      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I7/980
[1] 胡小勇;郭永玉;李静;杨沈龙. 社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(3): 271-289.
[2] 杨沈龙;郭永玉;胡小勇; 舒首立;李静. 低阶层者的系统合理化水平更高吗? ——基于社会认知视角的考察[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1467-1478.
[3] 凌斌;王重鸣. 时间距离对于验证性信息加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(8): 1176-1191.
[4] 徐惊蛰,谢晓非. 解释水平视角下的自己-他人决策差异[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(01): 11-20.
[5] 周浩,龙立荣. 家长式领导与组织公正感的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(05): 909-917.
[6] 王燕,龙立荣,周浩,祖伟. 分配不公正下的退缩行为:程序公正和互动公正的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(02): 335-342.
[7] 周浩,龙立荣,王燕,王忠军,吴怡,柯善玉. 分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(05): 687-693.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn