Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (10): 1180-1196    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01180
     研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
群际评价中热情与能力关系的情境演变:评价意图与结果的作用
佐斌1,2,温芳芳1,2(),吴漾3,代涛涛1
1华中师范大学心理学院暨社会心理研究中心
2青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室, 武汉 430079
3华中科技大学马克思主义学院, 武汉 430074
Situational evolution of the relationship between warmth and competence in intergroup evaluation: Impact of evaluating intention and behavioral outcomes
Bin ZUO1,2,Fangfang WEN1,2(),Yang WU3,Taotao DAI1
1 School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Social Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
2 Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
3 School of Marxism, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
全文: PDF(513 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

情境影响社会认知, 在群际评价时热情和能力两个维度的关系如何随着情境而变化?本文采用“遥远星球范式”对此进行了系列实验研究, 分别基于热情和能力的单维和双维信息呈现视角, 检验竞争与合作两种情境下成功和失败的结果对群体热情与能力感知的影响。结果表明:(1)在对外群体的热情和能力感知中, 由热情维度推断能力时两者存在正向关系; 由能力维度推断热情时则存在负向关系。(2)评价意图对外群体成员热情和能力评价的影响与具体情境无关。人们对外群体成员的热情和能力评价在得知互动意图时均呈现“趋中”平衡的趋势。(3)成败结果对外群体成员热情和能力评价的影响受到情境的制约。竞争情境中热情和能力表现出“此消彼长”的反向演变趋势, 而合作情境中热情和能力表现出“同消同长”的同向演变趋势。

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
佐斌
温芳芳
吴漾
代涛涛
关键词 刻板印象内容热情能力情境演变成败群际评价    
Abstract

Two critical dimensions, warmth and competence, feature prominently in people’s social cognitive processes, and there is a great deal of research examining the nature of these two dimensions and their relationships. Recently, researchers have become increasingly interested in the situational dependency that may characterize people’s perceptions of these two dimensions. However, past research has only considered the effect of simple and repeated interactions, leaving the nature and outcomes of the interactions unexamined. According to social interdependence theory, the competitive or cooperative interactions between groups may elicit disparate downstream effects on perceptions of group members. Various theoretical perspectives converged on the notion that the outcomes of previous interaction sessions may exercise a crucial but differential impact on the warmth and competence rating of outgroup members. The current work aimed to investigate the joint effect of the competitive/collaborative context and the interaction outcomes on people’s warmth and competence ratings as well as the relationship between the two dimensions.

The current research explored this problem in two studies. We investigated how the result of success or failure affects intergroup evaluation in different situations of competition and cooperation. A total of 496 undergraduates were recruited. In all four of our experiments, we used the Distant Planetary Paradigm and imagined a four-stage encounter with an alien prospecting team, with the characteristics and outcomes of each session manipulated according to experimental design. After each stage of the encounter, participants rated their perceptions of the warmth and competence of the alien groups.

The results showed that: (1) a positive relationship between warmth and competence ratings was observed when participants inferred competence from warmth-related information, and when they inferred warmth from competence-related information, the relationship reversed; (2) during the first stage of interaction, knowing the coaction intention of the outgroup exerted an overarching “centralizing” effect over people’s perception of the member of that outgroup, with the ratings on both dimensions showing a compensatory tendency; and (3) the effect of interaction outcome was contingent on the coaction contexts, such that in a competition context, ratings of warmth and competence exhibited an anti-parallel tendency as the four-stage interactions unfolded, such that a successful outcome may cause a rising-warmth-falling-competence tendency and a failure outcome may cause a warmth-falling-competence rising tendency, whereas in a cooperation context, ratings on the two dimensions evolved in a parallel fashion, such that a successful cooperation may cause an overall increase in ratings on both dimensions and a failed cooperation may cause overall falling ratings on both dimensions.

In conclusion, the current research is the first to explore the situational evolution of the relationship between warmth and competence ratings in intergroup evaluations, and has important implications for the future inter-group relationship research. This line of inquiry makes a novel contribution to the field by examining how social relationships within joint activities could influence behavior and intentions toward members of an outgroup.

Key wordsstereotype content    warmth    competence    situational evolution    success-failure    intergroup evaluation
收稿日期: 2017-11-13      出版日期: 2018-08-23
中图分类号:  B849:C91  
基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目(31571147);国家自然科学基金项目(31400903);华中师范大学中央基本科研业务费重大培育项目资助(CCNU18ZDPY12);华中师范大学中央基本科研业务费重大培育项目资助(CCNU14Z02015)
引用本文:   
佐斌,温芳芳,吴漾,代涛涛. (2018). 群际评价中热情与能力关系的情境演变:评价意图与结果的作用. 心理学报, 50(10): 1180-1196.
Bin ZUO,Fangfang WEN,Yang WU,Taotao DAI. (2018). Situational evolution of the relationship between warmth and competence in intergroup evaluation: Impact of evaluating intention and behavioral outcomes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(10), 1180-1196.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01180      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I10/1180
情境 高热情 低热情 高能力 低能力
热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力
初次接触 5.98 (0.97) 5.27 (1.02) 2.27 (1.31) 3.85 (1.36) 4.25 (1.23) 6.02 (1.00) 4.17 (1.31) 2.73 (1.25)
得知意图 5.06 (1.22) 5.33 (1.07) 2.37 (1.35) 4.00 (1.40) 3.80 (1.36) 5.83 (1.05) 3.75 (1.34) 3.12 (1.35)
任务成功 5.11 (1.23) 4.85 (1.17) 2.67 (1.54) 3.45 (1.44) 4.08 (1.34) 5.10 (1.14) 3.74 (1.33) 2.64 (1.31)
任务失败 4.73 (1.34) 5.78 (1.04) 2.54 (1.50) 4.66 (1.26) 3.67 (1.37) 5.92 (1.12) 3.53 (1.42) 4.43 (1.27)
  竞争情境中人们对不同刻板印象内容外群体4种阶段的热情和能力感知[M (SD)]
  竞争情境中4种不同阶段对不同刻板印象内容外群体的热情和能力评价
情境 高热情 低热情 高能力 低能力
热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力
初次接触 5.83 (1.13) 5.22 (1.04) 2.40 (1.37) 4.15 (1.39) 4.31 (1.22) 5.82 (1.10) 4.62 (1.33) 3.07 (1.31)
得知意图 5.66 (1.14) 5.42 (.97) 3.05 (1.36) 4.48 (1.37) 4.61 (1.16) 5.42 (.97) 3.05 (1.36) 3.89 (1.34)
任务成功 5.96 (1.11) 5.75 (1.04) 3.89 (1.38) 4.92 (1.25) 5.22 (1.13) 5.94 (1.07) 5.12 (1.18) 4.47 (1.21)
任务失败 5.08 (1.25) 4.68 (1.09) 2.63 (1.47) 3.92 (1.48) 3.95 (1.30) 5.23 (1.14) 3.97 (1.48) 3.29 (1.44)
  合作情境中人们对不同刻板印象内容外群体4种阶段的热情和能力感知[M (SD)]
  合作情境中4种不同阶段对不同刻板印象内容外群体的热情和能力评价
情境 高热情-高能力 低热情-高能力 高热情-低能力 低热情-低能力
热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力
初次接触 5.50 (1.35) 6.04 (1.12) 2.32 (1.29) 5.69 (1.27) 5.78 (1.20) 3.29 (1.46) 2.62 (1.59) 2.86 (1.54)
得知意图 4.86 (1.61) 5.89 (1.11) 2.54 (1.34) 5.58 (1.32) 5.17 (1.37) 3.55 (1.38) 2.73 (1.51) 3.22 (1.59)
任务成功 5.10 (1.46) 5.09 (1.52) 2.78 (1.41) 4.56 (1.50) 5.07 (1.42) 2.67 (1.54) 2.77 (1.61) 2.67 (1.54)
任务失败 4.61 (1.75) 5.91 (1.28) 2.46 (1.41) 5.53 (1.58) 4.61 (1.69) 4.42 (1.55) 2.64 (1.60) 4.12 (1.67)
  竞争情境中人们对不同刻板印象内容外群体4种阶段的热情和能力感知[M (SD)]
  竞争情境中不同阶段对不同刻板印象内容外群体的热情和能力评价
情境 高热情-高能力 低热情-高能力 高热情-低能力 低热情-低能力
热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力 热情 能力
初次接触 5.53 (1.48) 5.85 (1.30) 2.51 (1.47) 5.51 (1.29) 5.68 (1.19) 3.36 (1.46) 2.82 (1.59) 2.83 (1.45)
得知意图 5.45 (1.46) 5.88 (1.15) 3.16 (1.47) 5.52 (1.22) 5.46 (1.34) 3.86 (1.46) 3.29 (1.48) 3.41 (1.37)
任务成功 5.72 (1.43) 6.01 (1.26) 3.86 (1.53) 5.80 (1.23) 5.76 (1.24) 4.41 (1.32) 3.90 (1.52) 4.06 (1.44)
任务失败 4.73 (1.57) 5.13 (1.34) 2.78 (1.59) 4.75 (1.42) 5.00 (1.55) 3.33 (1.53) 2.70 (1.59) 2.84 (1.60)
  合作情境中人们对不同刻板印象内容外群体4种阶段的热情和能力感知[M (SD)]
  合作不同情境阶段对不同刻板印象内容外群体的热情和能力评价
情境 高热情 高热情-高能力 低热情 低热情-低能力 高能力 高能力-低热情 低能力 低能力-高热情
W/C W/C W/C W/C W/C W/C W/C W/C
评价
意图
竞争 ˉ- ˉˉ -- -- ˉˉ ˉ- ˉ-
合作 ˉ- ˉ- -- -- -- ˉ- ˉ-
评价
结果
竞争成功 ˉˉ
竞争失败 ˉ- ˉ- ˉ- ˉ- ˉ- ˉ- ˉ- ˉ-
合作成功 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
合作失败 ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ ˉˉ
  单维与双维视角下对不同刻板印象内容外群体4种阶段的热情和能力感知动态演变
[1] Abele A. E., Bruckmüller S., & Wojciszke B . ( 2014). You are so kind-and I am kind and smart: Actor-observer differences in the interpretation of on-going behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45( 4), 394-401.
[2] Abele A. E., Hauke N., Peters K., Louvet E., Szymkow A., & Duan Y . ( 2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: agency with competence and assertiveness— communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1810.
[3] Asch S.E . ( 1946). Forming impression of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41( 3), 258-290.
[4] Bakan D .( 1966). The duality of human existence: an essay on psychology and religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
[5] Bettelheim B., & Janowitz M . ( 1950). Dynamics of prejudice. New York: Harper
[6] Bye H.H., &Herrebrøden H .( 2017). Emotions as mediators of the stereotype-discrimination relationship: A bias map replication. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 136843021769437.
[7] Cacault M. P., Goette L., Lalive R., & Thoenig M . ( 2015). Do we harm others even if we don't need to? Frontiers in Psychology, 6( 729), 1-9.
pmid: 26082737
[8] Capozza D., Bernardo G. A. D., & Falvo R . ( 2017). Intergroup contact and outgroup humanization: Is the causal relationship uni- or bidirectional? Plos One, 12( 1), e0170554.
pmid: 5261613
[9] Chen Y., & Li S.X . ( 2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99( 1), 431-457.
[10] Cislak A., & Wojciszke B .( 2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38( 7), 1103-1110.
[11] Clough P.D., & Bates J . ( 2017). Competent men and warm women: Gender stereotypes and backlash in image search results. Computer and Human Interaction, 5, 6620-6631.
[12] Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., & Glick P . ( 2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92( 4), 631-648.
pmid: 17469949
[13] Dai T., Zuo B., & Wen F. F . ( 2014). The compensation effect between warmth and competence in social cognition. Advance in Psychological Science,22( 3), 502-511.
[ 代涛涛, 佐斌, 温芳芳 . ( 2014). 社会认知中热情与能力的补偿效应. 心理科学进展,22( 3), 502-511.]
[14] Dorrough A. R., Glöckner A., Hellmann D. M., & Ebert I . ( 2015). The development of ingroup favoritism in repeated social dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology , 6: 476.
pmid: 4411968
[15] Dovidio J. F., Love A., Schellhaas F. M. H., & Hewstone M . ( 2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20( 5), 136843021771205.
[16] Durrheim K., Quayle M., Tredoux C. G., Titlestad K., & Tooke L . ( 2016). Investigating the evolution of ingroup favoritism using a minimal group interaction paradigm: The effects of inter-and intragroup interdependence. Plos One,11( 11), e0165974.
[17] Fiske S.T . ( 1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48( 6), 621-628
pmid: 8328729
[18] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., & Glick P . ( 2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11( 2), 77-83.
pmid: 17188552
[19] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., & Xu J . ( 2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82( 6), 878-902.
[20] Fiske S.T . ( 2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27( 2), 67-73.
[21] Hayward L. E., Tropp L. R., Hornsey M. J., & Barlow F. K . ( 2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43( 3), 347-364.
[22] Hoffman C., & Hurst N .( 1990). Gender stereotypes: perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58( 2), 197-208.
[23] Holoien D.S., & Fiske S.T . ( 2013). Downplaying positive impressions: Compensation between warmth and competence in impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 1), 33-41.
[24] Johnson D.W .( 2003). Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58( 11), 934-945.
pmid: 14609388
[25] Judd C. M., James-Hawkins L., Yzerbyt V., & Kashima Y . ( 2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89( 6), 899-913.
[26] Kanas A., Scheepers P., & Sterkens C . ( 2017). Positive and negative contact and attitudes towards the religious out-group: testing the contact hypothesis in conflict and non-conflict regions of Indonesia and the Philippines. Social Science Research, 63, 95-110.
[27] Kervyn N., Bergsieker H. B., & Fiske S. T . ( 2012). The innuendo effect: hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48( 1), 77-85.
pmid: 26023243
[28] Kervyn N., Yzerbyt V. Y., & Judd C. M . ( 2011). When compensation guides inferences: indirect and implicit measures of the compensation effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41( 2), 144-150.
[29] Kervyn N., Yzerbyt V. Y., Judd C. M., & Nunes A . ( 2009). A question of compensation: The social life of the fundamental dimensions of social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96( 4), 828-842.
pmid: 19309205
[30] Meeusen C., Barlow F. K., & Sibley C. G . ( 2017). Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47( 4), 443-456.
[31] Rast III D. E., Gaffney A. M., & Yang F. G . ( 2017). The effect of stereotype content on intergroup uncertainty and interactions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1-10.
pmid: 29166218
[32] Schaller M., Park J. H., & Faulkner J . ( 2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices. European Review of Social Psychology, 14( 1), 105-137.
[33] Sherif M., Harvey O. J., White B. J., Hood W. R., & Sherif C. W . ( 1961). Intergroup cooperation and conflict: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma Book Exchange.
[34] Ufkes E. G., Otten S., van der Zee K. I., Giebels E., & Dovidio J. F . ( 2011). The effect of stereotype content on anger versus contempt in “day-to-day” conflicts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15( 1), 57-74.
[35] Uskul A., & Over H . ( 2017). Culture, social interdependence, and ostracism. Current Directions in Psychological Science,26( 4), 371-376.
[36] Vezzali L., Turner R., Capozza D., & Trifiletti E . ( 2018). Does intergroup contact affect personality? a longitudinal study on the bidirectional relationship between intergroup contact and personality traits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48( 2), 159-173.
[37] Wen F., Zuo B., Wu Y., Dong X., & Wang W . ( 2016). Reducing the effect of stereotype threat: The role of coaction contexts and regulatory fit. Social Psychology of Education, 19( 3), 607-626.
[38] Wolgast A., & Fischer N .( 2017). You are not alone: Colleague support and goal-oriented cooperation as resources to reduce teachers’ stress. Social Psychology of Education, 20( 1), 97-114.
[39] Yzerbyt V. Y., Kervyn N., & Judd C. M . ( 2008). Compensation versus halo: The unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34( 8), 1110-1123.
[40] Zuo B., Dai T. T., Wen F. F., & Suo Y.X . ( 2015). The big two model in social cognition. Journal of Psychological Science, 38( 4), 1019-1023.
[ 佐斌, 代涛涛, 温芳芳, 索玉贤 . ( 2015). 社会认知内容的“大二”模型. 心理科学, 38( 4), 1019-1023.]
[41] Zuo B., Dai T. T., Wen F. F., & Teng T. T . ( 2014). The relationship between warmth and competence in social cognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 22( 9), 1467-1474.
[ 佐斌, 代涛涛, 温芳芳, 滕婷婷 . ( 2014). 热情与能力的关系及影响因素. 心理科学进展, 22( 9), 1467-1474.]
[42] Zuo B., Zhang Y. Y., Zhao J., & Wang J . ( 2006). The stereotype content model and its researches. Advances in Psychological Science, 14( 1), 138-145.
[ 佐斌, 张阳阳, 赵菊, 王娟 . ( 2006). 刻板印象内容模型:理论假设及研究. 心理科学进展, 14( 1), 138-145.]
[1] 张明亮, 司继伟, 杨伟星, 邢淑芬, 李红霞, 张佳佳. BDNF基因rs6265多态性与父母教育卷入对小学儿童基本数学能力的交互作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 1007-1017.
[2] 孙鑫,黎坚,符植煜. 利用游戏log-file预测学生推理能力和数学成绩——机器学习的应用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 761-770.
[3] 韦庆旺, 李木子, 陈晓晨.  社会阶层与社会知觉:热情和能力哪个更重要?[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(2): 243-252.
[4] 王燕, 侯博文, 李歆瑶, 李晓煦, 焦璐.  不同性别比和资源获取能力 对未婚男性择偶标准的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1195-1205.
[5] 谈晨皓, 王沛, 崔诣晨.  我会在谁面前舍弃利益? ——博弈对象的能力与社会距离对名利 博弈倾向的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1206-1218.
[6] 刘湍丽, 白学军.  部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1158-1171.
[7] 魏丹, 刘红云, 张丹慧.  多维题组反应模型:多维随机系数多项 Logistic模型的应用拓展[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1604-1614.
[8] 范伟; 钟毅平; 李慧云; 孟楚熠; 游畅; 傅小兰. 欺骗判断与欺骗行为中自我控制的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 845-856.
[9] 康春花; 任平; 曾平飞. 多级评分聚类诊断法的影响因素[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 891-902.
[10] 温红博;梁凯丽;刘先伟. 家庭环境对中学生阅读能力的影响:阅读投入、阅读兴趣的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(3): 248-257.
[11] 魏华;汪涛;周宗奎;冯文婷;丁倩. 叠音品牌名称对消费者知觉和偏好的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1479-1488.
[12] 江红艳;王海忠;何云;朱力. 公司形象和产品属性超越的协同效应:基于刻板印象内容模型[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 95-105.
[13] 庞隽;毕圣. 广告诉求-品牌来源国刻板印象匹配度对品牌态度的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 406-416.
[14] 晏碧华;游旭群. 相对到达时间任务中飞行员对客体特征与运动特征的分离[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 212-223.
[15] 毛晓飞;彭华茂. 视知觉压力在基本心理能力老化中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(1): 29-38.
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