Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (10): 1322-1333    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01322
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 崔丽莹; 何 幸; 罗俊龙; 黄晓娇; 曹玮佳 陈晓梅
 (上海师范大学教育学院, 上海 200234)
 The effects of moral punishment and relationship punishment on junior middle school students’ cooperation behaviors in public goods dilemma
 CUI Liying; HE Xing; LUO Junlong; HUANG Xiaojiao; CAO Weijia; CHEN Xiaomei
 (College of Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China)
全文: PDF(499 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
摘要  本研究模拟公共物品两难困境范式, 以初中生为被试, 通过两个实验分别考察道德惩罚和关系惩罚对不同性别和社会价值取向个体合作行为的影响。结果发现:(1)两种惩罚条件下初中生的合作水平均显著高于无惩罚条件, 但当惩罚撤除后只有关系惩罚条件下的效应还存在; (2)初中女生在两种惩罚条件下的合作水平均显著高于无惩罚条件, 而男生只在关系惩罚条件下出现该情况; (3)亲社会取向与亲自我取向初中生在两种惩罚阶段均表现出更高的合作水平, 但在惩罚撤除后, 只有亲社会取向者保持了高合作水平。这些结果表明, 关系惩罚的作用较为持久, 且对男生的影响更为突出, 不过两种惩罚在亲社会取向者身上均显现出延后效应。
E-mail Alert
关键词  道德惩罚 关系惩罚 公共物品困境 合作 社会价值取向    
Abstract: Several factors can account for the cooperative behaviors in social dilemmas, which include individual differences, reward and punishment system, task design and so on. People have a strong aversion to being the “sucker” in social dilemma situations so that those who prefer cooperation may be willing to punish free-riding. Researches demonstrated that although punishment could promote people’s cooperative behaviors temperately, their cooperation levels would drop down to the baseline when the punishment was removed. In previous studies, material punishment was adopted most frequently, however, social punishment has not been sufficiently investigated. Furthermore, there is no unanimous conclusion towards the issue whether the cooperation of the juveniles has any gender differences. So this study mainly examined the effects of moral punishment and interpersonal punishment on the junior middle school student’s cooperative behaviors. Last but not least, social value orientation is a relatively stable individual state and is defined as a tendency of allocation proportion between individual and others. Therefore, we further explored the relationship between social value orientation and student’s cooperative behaviors under different types of punishment. Accordingly, the present study consisted of 2 experiments. The first experiment was organized into a 3 × 2 factorial design. The first factor was the type of punishment, consisting of 3 levels: moral punishment, interpersonal punishment and no punishment. The second factor was the phase of punishment, consisting of 2 levels: punishment in the first phase and no punishment in the second one. Specifically, participants were randomly assigned to the three types of punishment. For punishment groups, participants were given the two phases of punishment. The second experiment was organized into a 3 × 2 × 2 factorial design. The first two factors were the same as experiment 1. The third factor was the type of social value orientation, encompassing 2 levels: prosocial participants and proself participants. The results are as follows, first, the cooperative level was significantly higher in the moral and interpersonal punishment conditions compared to no punishment condition, and the punishment effect remained when the interpersonal punishment removed. Second, punishment effects were significantly greater in the interpersonal and moral conditions than in the no punishment condition for the female participants, but the male participants just had this effect on the case of the interpersonal conditions. Third, a greater cooperative level observed in the moral and interpersonal punishment conditions across both prosocial participants and proself participants, but only the prosocial participants kept a higher cooperative level when the punishment removed. These results suggested that the moral and interpersonal punishment could promote the cooperative behaviors of the junior middle school students. In comparison, the interpersonal punishment had a more lasting effect, which was more prominent in the male group. Additionally, relative to the case of proself participants, there was a long-term effect on punishment for prosocial participants.
Key words moral punishment    interpersonal punishment    public goods dilemma    cooperation    social value orientation
收稿日期: 2015-11-30      出版日期: 2017-08-13
基金资助: 上海市哲学社会科学规划项目教育学专项(A1106)、上海市自然科学基金项目(17ZR1420500)、上海市教育委员会科研创新项目(15ZS041)资助。
通讯作者: 罗俊龙, E-mail:     E-mail: E-mail:
崔丽莹, 何幸, 罗俊龙, 黄晓娇, 曹玮佳, 陈晓梅.  道德与关系惩罚对初中生公共物品困境中合作行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(10): 1322-1333.
CUI Liying, HE Xing, LUO Junlong, HUANG Xiaojiao, CAO Weijia, CHEN Xiaomei.  The effects of moral punishment and relationship punishment on junior middle school students’ cooperation behaviors in public goods dilemma. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(10): 1322-1333.
链接本文:      或
[1] 柯淳淳, 聂爱情, 张瑞卿.  回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节 ——情绪效价和编码水平的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 733-744.
[2] 张书维.  社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 794-813.
[3] 张梅;辛自强;林崇德. 三人问题解决中的惯例:测量及合作水平的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 814-825.
[4] 陈思静;何铨;马剑虹. 第三方惩罚对合作行为的影响:基于社会规范激活的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 389-405.
[5] 李晶;朱莉琪. 高功能孤独症儿童的合作行为[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1301-1316.
[6] 白丽英;袁博;张蔚;张振;兰姣;王益文. 人际合作与冲突影响博弈决策的结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(11): 1760-1771.
[7] 刘长江,郝芳. 不对称社会困境中社会价值取向对合作的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(04): 432-441.
[8] 王沛,陈莉. 惩罚和社会价值取向对公共物品两难中人际信任与合作行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(01): 52-64.
[9] 谢晓非,余媛媛,陈曦,陈晓萍. 合作与竞争人格倾向测量[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(01): 116-125.


. 群体任务中合作行为的跨阶段演变[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(04): 499-503.
[11] 严进,王重鸣. 两难情景下任务结构与价值取向的效用特征转换[J]. 心理学报, 2002, 34(05): 87-91.
[12] 严进,王重鸣. 两难对策中价值取向对群体合作行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(03): 332-336.
[13] 李敏,陈琦. 小学几何教学中计算机不同应用模式的比较[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(01): 75-81.
Full text



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