Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (2) : 240-256     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00240
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Social license of public decision from the behavioral public administration perspective: Transparency effect and its moderation
ZHANG Shuwei1,SHEN Yiren1,ZHOU Jie2()
1 Center for Chinese Public Administration Research; School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275 China
2 Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101 China
Download: PDF(959 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

The essence of public administration is public decision-making. Social license of public decision (SLPD) refers to the extent to which local people accept and support a public decision from government or public authorities. Lack of this license not only hinders the efficiency of government policy, but also affects the decision-making authority and long-term goals of society. Moreover, government transparency is regarded as an important factor to eliminate public decision-making dilemma and enhance administrative legitimacy both in value and democratic practices.

This research explored the causal relationship between transparency of government decision-making (i.e., transparency in process and transparency in rational) and SLPD from the perspective of Behavioral Public Administration (BPA), which is a bridge linking Public Administration and Psychology. In other words, BPA is a new interdisciplinary sub-field of Public Administration from Psychology. The research of BPA mainly focuses on the process between government decision-making and citizen experience. In addition, based on the concept of bounded rationality and heuristic judgment as well as system justification theory, we built and tested the moderating roles of trust in government and outcome dependence between transparency of government decision-making and SLPD in two models. Outcome dependence is the extent to which someone is dependent on a powerful authority (i.e., the representative of a system) when that authority controls valued resources whose social and/or material outcome the person desires.

This research includes three studies, two survey experiments (N = 354 + 354) and one field survey (N = 520). The studies were conducted in China. The results showed that:

First, transparency of governmental decision-making positively influenced SLPD. That is, for both transparency in process and transparency in rationale of government decision-making, the higher the transparency is, the higher the SLPD is.

Second, trust in government moderated the relationship between transparency in rational and SLPD. Specifically, the positive relationship between transparency in rational and SLPD gets weakened when the trust in government is higher.

Third, outcome dependence moderated the relationship between transparency of governmental decision-making and SLPD. Specifically, the positive relationship between two types of transparency and SLPD gets weakened when the outcome dependence is higher.

Therefore, “Transparency effects” of SLPD was proposed through the present research. In addition, “cautious indifference” was used to indicate the moderating role of trust in government, and “selective neglect” was used to indicate the moderating effect of outcome dependence. The theoretical contributions were embodied in three aspects: (1) defining a new concept (i.e., SLPD); (2) introducing a new perspective (i.e., BPA); (3) discovering a new mechanism (i.e., transparency effect and its moderators). Regarding the practical implications, this research could shed light on the transparency practice, and provides empirical evidence to government for further enhancing the legitimacy of public decisions.

Keywords Behavioral Public Administration      transparency in rational      transparency in process      trust in government      outcome dependence      social license     
ZTFLH:  B849: C93  
Corresponding Authors: Jie ZHOU     E-mail: zhouj@psych.ac.cn
Issue Date: 24 December 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Shuwei ZHANG
Yiren SHEN
Jie ZHOU
Cite this article:   
Shuwei ZHANG,Yiren SHEN,Jie ZHOU. Social license of public decision from the behavioral public administration perspective: Transparency effect and its moderation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(2): 240-256.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00240     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I2/240
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.003
3. 政府信任操纵 - - 0.009 -0.021
4. 风险感知 3.91 1.36 -0.060 -0.151** -0.156**
5. 社会许可 4.53 1.27 0.308*** 0.169** 0.317*** -0.447***
6. 性别a - - -0.020 -0.026 -0.009 0.018 -0.013
7. 年龄 21.13 2.35 -0.018 0.014 -0.041 0.134* -0.173** -0.087
8. 专业b - - -0.051 0.032 -0.066 0.195*** -0.171** 0.257*** 0.181**
  
变异来源 Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 41.566 1 41.566 40.840 < 0.001 0.086
内容透明 7.905 1 7.905 7.767 0.006 0.016
政府信任 33.253 1 33.253 32.672 < 0.001 0.069
过程透明×内容透明 1.992 1 1.992 1.957 0.163 0.004
过程透明×政府信任 0.360 1 0.360 0.354 0.552 0.001
内容透明×政府信任 6.911 1 6.911 6.790 0.010 0.014
过程透明×内容透明×
政府信任
1.741 1 1.741 1.710 0.192 0.004
Residual (残差) 325.692 320 1.018
  
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.021
3. 结果依赖操纵 - - 0.009 -0.020
4. 风险感知 4.24 1.36 -0.103 -0.085 0.344**
5. 社会许可 4.35 1.33 0.204*** 0.274*** 0.161** -0.143**
6. 性别a - - 0.014 -0.061 0.078 -0.141** 0.095
7. 年龄 21.02 2.31 -0.051 -0.015 0.021 0.090 -0.132* 0.134*
8. 专业b - - 0.019 -0.006 0.027 0.164** -0.074 -0.260*** 0.018
  
变异来源 Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 18.121 1 18.121 13.045 < 0.001 0.030
内容透明 38.248 1 38.248 27.534 < 0.001 0.064
结果依赖 26.668 1 26.668 19.198 < 0.001 0.045
过程透明×内容透明 3.371 1 3.371 2.427 0.120 0.006
过程透明×结果依赖 7.732 1 7.732 5.566 0.019 0.013
内容透明×结果依赖 6.944 1 6.944 4.999 0.026 0.012
过程透明×内容透明×结果依赖 14.866 1 14.866 10.702 0.001 0.028
Residual (残差) 459.788 331 1.389
  
  
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1.过程透明 3.14 0.88
2.内容透明 3.16 0.82 0.765***
3.政府信任 3.39 0.73 0.528*** 0.474***
4.结果依赖 3.72 0.68 0.111* 0.130** 0.241***
5.社会许可 3.52 0.63 0.431*** 0.452*** 0.670*** 0.279***
  
变量 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5 模型6
过程透明 0.431*** 0.107*** 0.109***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.173*** 0.186***
政府信任 0.614*** 0.605*** 0.588*** 0.577***
过程透明×政府信任 -0.057
内容透明×政府信任 -0.097**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.455 0.457 0.203 0.470 0.478
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.271*** 0.003 0.204*** 0.268*** 0.009***
F 105.75*** 194.84*** 131.27*** 119.14*** 207.05*** 142.98***
变量 模型7 模型8 模型9 模型10 模型11 模型12
过程透明 0.431*** 0.405*** 0.412***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.423*** 0.424***
结果依赖 0.234*** 0.227*** 0.224*** 0.213***
过程透明×结果依赖 -0.085*
内容透明×结果依赖 -0.114**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.236 0.242 0.203 0.250 0.262
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.054*** 0.007* 0.204*** 0.049*** 0.013**
F 105.75*** 72.947*** 50.456*** 119.14*** 78.596*** 55.903***
  
[1] Battaglio R. P., Belardinelli P., Bellé N., & Cantarelli P . (2019). Behavioral Public Administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations, Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320.
[2] Birkinshaw P. J . (2006). Freedom of information and openness: Fundamental human rights. Administrative Law Review, 58(1), 177-218.
[3] Chen L. J., & Jin M . (2019). The integrity analysis framework of not in my back yard in the perspective of perception of risk. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute, (1), 37-46.
[3] [ 陈丽君, 金铭 . (2019). 风险认知视角下的邻避冲突整体性分析框架. 甘肃行政学院学报, (1), 37-46.]
[4] Chi S. X., Chen C., & Xu Y . (2017). Environmental concern and willingness to pay for environmental protection: Moderating effects of Governmental Trust. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Science Edition), 17(5), 72-79.
[4] [ 池上新, 陈诚, 许英 . (2017). 环境关心与环保支付意愿:政府信任的调节效应——兼论环境治理的困境. 中国地质大学学报: 社会科学版, 17(5), 72-79.]
[5] Clark J. T., & Wegener D. T . (2008). Unpacking outcome dependency: differentiating effects of dependency and outcome desirability on the processing of goal-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 586-599.
[6] Cucciniello M., Porumbescu G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen S . (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32-44.
[7] Cummings L . (2014). The “trust” heuristic: arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043-1056.
[8] de Cremer, D., & Tyler T. R . (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639-649.
[9] de Fine Licht J . (2011). Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 183-201.
[10] de Fine Licht J . (2014a). Transparency actually: How transparency affects public perceptions of political decision making. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 309-330.
[11] de Fine Licht J . (2014b). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 361-371.
[12] de Fine Licht J., Naurin D., Esaiasson P., & Gilljam M . (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111-134.
[13] Etzioni A . (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389-404.
[14] Fairbanks J., Plowman K. D., & Rawlins B. L . (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 23-37.
[15] Ferry L., & Eckersley P . (2015). Accountability and transparency: A nuanced response to Etzioni. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 11-12.
[16] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G . (2012). Transparency and trust: An experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Utrecht University.
[17] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., Jilke S., Olsen A. L., & Tummers L . (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56.
[18] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Klijn A . (2015). The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration, 93(4), 995-1011.
[19] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Meijer A. J . (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137-157.
[20] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Meijer A. J . (2015). Does twitter increase perceived police legitimacy? Public Administration Review, 75(4), 598-607.
[21] He Y. L. (2018). An intellectual history of public administration. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.
[21] [ 何艳玲 . (2018). 公共行政学史. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.]
[22] Hood C., & Heald D . (2006) Transparency: The key to better governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] James O., Jilke S. R., & van Ryzin G . (2017a). Behavioural and experimental public administration: Emerging contributions and new directions. Public Administration, 95(4), 865-873.
[24] James O., Jilke S. R., & van Ryzin G . (2017b). Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
[25] Jost J. T., & van der Toorn J . (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313-343). London, UK: Sage
[26] Kahneman D . (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
[27] Kim S. E . (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration & Society, 37(5), 611-635.
[28] Kluemper D. H., Taylor S. G., Bowler W. M., Bing M. N& Halbesleben J. R. B . (2019). How leaders perceive employee deviance: Blaming victims while excusing favorites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 946-964.
[29] Levi M., & Stoker L . (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475-507.
[30] Levi M., Sacks A., & Tyler T . (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375.
[31] Li S . (2018). No social licence, people say "no". Management Insights,(16), 78-81.
[31] [ 李纾 . (2018). 无社会, 不许可?. 管理视野, (16), 78-81.]
[32] Li W. B., & Ho A. K . (2016). Government performance information, transparency and citizen satisfaction. Journal of Public Administration, 9(2), 93-111.
[32] [ 李文彬, 何达基 . (2016). 政府客观绩效、透明度与公民满意度. 公共行政评论, 9(2), 93-111.]
[33] Lio M. C., Liu M. C., & Ou Y. P . (2011). Can the internet reduce corruption? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 47-53.
[34] Mansbridge J . (2009). A “selection model” of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 369-398.
[35] Meijer A . (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255-269.
[36] Meng T. G., Yang P., & Su Z . (2015). Public opinion and local fiscal decision making in authoritarian China: Based on survey experiment to local government. Journal of Public Management, 12(3), 57-68.
[36] [ 孟天广, 杨平, 苏政 . (2015). 转型中国的公民意见与地方财政决策——基于对地方政府的调查实验. 公共管理学报, 12(3), 57-68.]
[37] Pan L . (2012). Performance evaluation, communication environment, and decision legitimacy: A case in China (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Temple University.
[38] Piotrowski S. J., & Borry E . (2010). An analytic framework for open meetings and transparency. Public Administration & Management, 15(1), 138-176.
[39] Porumbescu G. A . (2017). Does transparency improve citizens' perceptions of government performance? Evidence from Seoul, South Korea. Administration & Society, 49(3), 443-468.
[40] Porumbescu G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen S . (2017). Linking decision-making procedures to decision acceptance and citizen voice: Evidence from two studies. American Review of Public Administration, 48(8) 902-914.
[41] Porumbescu G., Bellé N., Cucciniello M., & Nasi G . (2017a). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration, 95(4), 990-1008.
[42] Porumbescu G. A., Lindeman M. I. H., Ceka E., & Cucciniello M . (2017b). Can transparency foster more understanding and compliant citizens? Public Administration Review, 77(6), 840-850.
[43] Rui G. Q., & Song D . (2012). An empirical research on how the public information disclosure affects government trust. Chinese Public Administration,(11), 96-101.
[43] [ 芮国强, 宋典 . (2012). 信息公开影响政府信任的实证研究. 中国行政管理, (11), 96-101.]
[44] Scholz J. T., & Lubell M . (1998). Trust and taxpaying: testing the heuristic approach to collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 398-417.
[45] Simon H. A . (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. England: Macmillan.
[46] Tummers L., Olsen A. L., Jilke S., Grimmelikhuijsen S. G . (2016). Introduction to the virtual issue on Behavioral Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv039.
doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv039
[47] Tyler T. R . (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
[48] van der Toorn J., & Jost J. T . (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “Ideology and system justification processes”. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413-419.
[49] van der Toorn J., Feinberg M., Jost J. T., Kay A. C., Tyler T. R., Willer R., & Wilmuth C . (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology, 36(1), 93-110.
[50] van der Toorn J., Tyler T. R., & Jost J. T . (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 127-138.
[51] Whyte, M. K . (2009). Views of Chinese citizens on current inequalities. Sociological Studies,(1), 96-120.
[51] [ 怀默霆 . (2009). 中国民众如何看待当前的社会不平等. 社会学研究, (1), 96-120.]
[52] Wu D. Z . (2015). The trust interpretation of political legitimacy. Peking University Law Review, 16(2), 223-271.
[52] [ 伍德志 . (2015). 政治合法性的信任解释. 北大法律评论, 16(2), 223-271.]
[53] Wu W., Ma L., & Yu W . (2017). Government transparency and perceived social equity: Assessing the moderating effect of citizen trust in china. Administration & Society, 49(6), 882-906.
[54] 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(2), 329-337.
[55] Yan C. W., & He X. L . (2019). The development of scientific discourse and the counteraction of risk discourse: The local government and the public in the policy process of the Maoming PX program. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, (1), 61-69.
[55] [ 颜昌武, 何巧丽 . (2019). 科学话语的建构与风险话语的反制——茂名“PX”项目政策过程中的地方政府与公众. 经济社会体制比较, (1), 61-69.]
[56] Yang S. L., Guo Y. Y., Yu F., Rao T. T., Zhao L., & Xu L. Y . (2018). Three explanatory perspectives on the root of system justification. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(12), 2238-2248.
[56] [ 杨沈龙, 郭永玉, 喻丰, 饶婷婷, 赵靓, 许丽颖 . (2018). 系统合理化何以形成——三种不同的解释视角. 心理科学进展, 26(12), 2238-2248.]
[57] Yu J. X., & Huang B . (2019). How to move beyond government-centered public administration? Evidence from “Visit Once” Reform. CASS Journal of Political Science,(2), 49-60+126.
[57] [ 郁建兴, 黄飚 . (2019). 超越政府中心主义治理逻辑如何可能——基于“最多跑一次”改革的经验. 政治学研究, (2), 49-60+126.
[58] Yu, W. X . (2013). Government Transparency and political trust: Evidence from China. Chinese Public Administration,(2), 110-115.
[58] [ 于文轩 . (2013). 政府透明度与政治信任: 基于2011中国城市服务型政府调查的分析. 中国行政管理, (2), 110-115.]
[59] Zhang A., Moffat K., Lacey J., Wang J., González R., Uribe K., ... Dai Y . (2015). Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a comparative study of Australia, China and Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1063-1072.
[60] Zhang A. R., Chen J. F., Kuang Y., Wang X. M., Wu X. J., Yang S. W., ... Li. Y . (2018). Socio-environmental impacts and social licence: A critical review and future directions. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(10), 1711-1723.
[60] [ 张爱荣, 陈俊芳, 匡仪, 王晓明, 吴小菊, 杨舒雯, ... 李纾 . (2018). 环境和生态意识催生的社会许可问题:缘起与应对. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1711-1723.]
[61] Zhang Q. M., & Zhang Y . (2017). Risk perception and NIMBY behavior of waste treatment plant neighboring residents. Environmental Science and Management, 42(2), 1-4.
[61] [ 张启蒙, 张越 . (2017). 垃圾处理设施周边居民风险感知与邻避行为倾向研究. 环境科学与管理, 42(2), 1-4.]
[62] Zhang S. W . (2015). Psychosocial mechanism of environmental mass incidents. Politics Review of Sun Yat-sen University, 8, 16-34.
[62] [ 张书维 . (2015). 环境污染群体性事件的社会心理机制. 中大政治学评论(第8辑), 16-34.]
[63] Zhang S. W . (2016a). Find out boundaries of rationality, open up black box of decision making: A review of ‘An equate-to-differentiate way of decision-making’. Journal of Public Administration, 9(5), 192-198.
[63] [ 张书维 . (2016a). 寻找理性边界, 打开决策黑箱——评《决策心理: 齐当别之道》. 公共行政评论, 9(5), 192-198.]
[64] Zhang S. W . (2016b). The influencing factors and improving paths of trust in government. National Governance,(34), 43-48.
[64] [ 张书维 . (2016b). 政府信任度的影响因素与提升路径研究. 国家治理, (34), 43-48.]
[65] Zhang S. W . (2017). Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(6), 794-813.
[65] [ 张书维 . (2017). 社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向. 心理学报, 49(6), 794-813.]
[66] Zhang S. W . (2018). Symposium introduction--Behavioral public administration: A bridge linking public administration and psychology. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 1-6.
[66] [ 张书维 . (2018). 行为公共管理学:用“心”求“理”. 公共行政评论, 11(1), 1-6.]
[67] Zhang S. W., & Li S . (2018). Exploring behavioral public administration: Content, method and trend. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 7-36.
[67] [ 张书维, 李纾 . (2018). 行为公共管理学探新:内容、方法与趋势. 公共行政评论, 11(1), 7-36.]
[68] Zhang S. W., Wang E. P., & Chen Y. W . (2011). Relative deprivation based on occupation: An effective predictor of Chinese life satisfaction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14(2), 148-158.
[69] Zhang S. W., & Xu Z. G . (2018). Interaction mechanism of public decision-making from the behavioral public administration perspective: An analysis based on environmental projects. Chinese Public Administration,(12), 59-65.
[69] [ 张书维, 许志国 . (2018). 行为公共管理学视角下政府决策的互动机制——基于环境型项目的分析. 中国行政管理, (12), 59-65.]
[70] Zhang S. W., Xu Z. G., & Xu Y . (2014). Social justice and political trust: The mechanism of cooperation with government. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 588-595.
[70] [ 张书维, 许志国, 徐岩 . (2014). 社会公正与政治信任:民众对政府的合作行为机制. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 588-595.]
[71] Zhang S. W., & Zhou J . (2018). Social justice and public cooperation intention: Mediating role of political trust and moderating effect of outcome dependence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1381.
[72] Zheng J. J . (2017). An empirical study of the relationship between government function transformation and public service satisfaction: Model testing based on government transparency and citizen participation. Journal of Hit (Social Sciences Edition), 19(4), 15-21.
[72] [ 郑建君 . (2017). 政府职能转变与公民公共服务满意度之关系——基于政府透明度和公民参与的实证分析. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版), 19(4), 15-21.]
[73] Zhou H., & Long L. R . (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
[73] [ 周浩, 龙立荣 . (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.]
[74] Zhou J., & Xie Y . (2016). Does economic development affect life satisfaction? A spatial-temporal contextual analysis in China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 643-658.
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech