心理科学进展 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (12): 2718-2734.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02718
收稿日期:
2021-11-03
出版日期:
2022-12-15
发布日期:
2022-09-23
通讯作者:
刘萍萍
E-mail:liupp@psych.ac.cn
基金资助:
SHI Huiying, TANG Jie, LIU Pingping()
Received:
2021-11-03
Online:
2022-12-15
Published:
2022-09-23
Contact:
LIU Pingping
E-mail:liupp@psych.ac.cn
摘要:
眼睛效应指人们面对眼睛或类似眼睛的图案时会发生行为改变的现象。但是, 眼睛效应的稳健性备受争议, 主要有4种观点:促使人们更亲社会、更遵守社会规范、降低反社会行为、无效果。结合规范错觉和创新扩散理论, 基于感知规范的视角, 当感知亲社会规范流行程度较高时, 眼睛效应既会“促进亲社会行为”或“促进人们遵守社会规范”, 也会“降低反社会行为”; 但当感知亲社会规范流行程度较低时, 眼睛效应对一些反社会行为“无效果”; 当规范错觉较大且无规范干预时, 眼睛效应同样对一些反社会行为无效果。因此, 将以上4种争议观点整合为“不同感知规范条件下的眼睛效应”, 揭示了眼睛效应不稳定的原因, 为未来实证研究和实践应用提供理论基础。
中图分类号:
时慧颖, 汤洁, 刘萍萍. (2022). 眼睛效应不稳定与感知规范:一个新视角. 心理科学进展 , 30(12), 2718-2734.
SHI Huiying, TANG Jie, LIU Pingping. (2022). Instability of the watching eyes effect and perceived norms: A new perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(12), 2718-2734.
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|
Bateson et al. ( | 不乱丢垃圾 | 72.9%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 周围人多时更不乱丢垃圾 |
Bateson et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 84.4%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
实验二 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 83.3%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 周围人少时更不乱丢 垃圾, 人多时反而乱丢 |
Bolton et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率84.9% | 无效果 |
Boulet et al. ( | 医生开过量的血常规化验单 | 不过量比例66.7% | 无效果 |
Burnham & Hare ( | 公共池捐赠 | 几乎全部捐赠, 均值41.7%~52.5% | 提高捐赠额 |
Dear ( | |||
医院 | 不偷自行车 | 大部分人不偷自行车 | 降低偷盗行为 |
商店 | 不偷窃 | 大部分人不偷窃 | 降低偷盗行为 |
公园 | 不飙车 | 大部分人不飙车 | 无效果 |
路边 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 大部分人不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
Ernest-Jones et al. ( | 不乱丢垃圾 | 73.6%的餐桌不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
Keep Britain Tidy ( | 遛狗捡屎 | 大部分人遛狗捡屎 | 促进遛狗捡屎行为 |
Nettle et al. ( | 偷自行车 | 校园一年共39次偷自行车现象 | 降低偷盗行为 |
Pfattheicher et al. ( | 便后洗手率 | 洗手率71.9% | 提高 |
Stella et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率70% | 无效果 |
Yang et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率69.4% | 部分提高 |
表1 感知亲社会规范流行程度较高时的眼睛效应
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|
Bateson et al. ( | 不乱丢垃圾 | 72.9%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 周围人多时更不乱丢垃圾 |
Bateson et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 84.4%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
实验二 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 83.3%的被试不乱丢垃圾 | 周围人少时更不乱丢 垃圾, 人多时反而乱丢 |
Bolton et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率84.9% | 无效果 |
Boulet et al. ( | 医生开过量的血常规化验单 | 不过量比例66.7% | 无效果 |
Burnham & Hare ( | 公共池捐赠 | 几乎全部捐赠, 均值41.7%~52.5% | 提高捐赠额 |
Dear ( | |||
医院 | 不偷自行车 | 大部分人不偷自行车 | 降低偷盗行为 |
商店 | 不偷窃 | 大部分人不偷窃 | 降低偷盗行为 |
公园 | 不飙车 | 大部分人不飙车 | 无效果 |
路边 | 不乱丢垃圾 | 大部分人不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
Ernest-Jones et al. ( | 不乱丢垃圾 | 73.6%的餐桌不乱丢垃圾 | 更不乱丢垃圾 |
Keep Britain Tidy ( | 遛狗捡屎 | 大部分人遛狗捡屎 | 促进遛狗捡屎行为 |
Nettle et al. ( | 偷自行车 | 校园一年共39次偷自行车现象 | 降低偷盗行为 |
Pfattheicher et al. ( | 便后洗手率 | 洗手率71.9% | 提高 |
Stella et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率70% | 无效果 |
Yang et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率69.4% | 部分提高 |
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beyfus et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率约40% | 无 | 提高 |
Blackwell et al. ( | 便后洗手率 | 洗手率43.5% | 无 | 无效果 |
Matland & Murray ( | ||||
弗吉尼亚农村 | 投票率 | 投票率44.23% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
明尼亚波利斯市 | 投票率 | 投票率41.56% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
托莱多市 | 投票率 | 投票率37.47% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
米德兰市 | 投票率 | 投票率25.77% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
埃尔帕索市 | 投票率 | 投票率16.49% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
Mobekk et al. ( | ||||
中心 1 | 使用健身器材后清洁 | 清洁率45%~55% | 无 | 提高 |
中心 2 | 使用健身器材后清洁 | 清洁率39%~41% | 无 | 提高 |
Panagopoulos ( | 投票率 | 投票率22.3%~24.7% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
表2 感知亲社会规范流行程度中等偏低时的眼睛效应
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beyfus et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率约40% | 无 | 提高 |
Blackwell et al. ( | 便后洗手率 | 洗手率43.5% | 无 | 无效果 |
Matland & Murray ( | ||||
弗吉尼亚农村 | 投票率 | 投票率44.23% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
明尼亚波利斯市 | 投票率 | 投票率41.56% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
托莱多市 | 投票率 | 投票率37.47% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
米德兰市 | 投票率 | 投票率25.77% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
埃尔帕索市 | 投票率 | 投票率16.49% | 命令性规范 | 无效果 |
Mobekk et al. ( | ||||
中心 1 | 使用健身器材后清洁 | 清洁率45%~55% | 无 | 提高 |
中心 2 | 使用健身器材后清洁 | 清洁率39%~41% | 无 | 提高 |
Panagopoulos ( | 投票率 | 投票率22.3%~24.7% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
研究 | 因变量 | 控制组实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Brudermann et al. ( | 匿名购买自觉付费 | 普遍不付费 | 无/描述性规范 | 无效果 |
Gaube et al. ( | 医护和病人洗手率 | 洗手率5.3%~5.5% | 无 | 无效果 |
命令性规范 | 提高 | |||
King et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率15% | 命令性规范 | 部分提高 |
Panagopoulos ( | 投票率 | 投票率3.9% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
Sénémeaud et al. ( | 献血率 | 献血率6.75% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
表3 感知亲社会规范流行程度较低时的眼睛效应
研究 | 因变量 | 控制组实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Brudermann et al. ( | 匿名购买自觉付费 | 普遍不付费 | 无/描述性规范 | 无效果 |
Gaube et al. ( | 医护和病人洗手率 | 洗手率5.3%~5.5% | 无 | 无效果 |
命令性规范 | 提高 | |||
King et al. ( | 医护洗手率 | 洗手率15% | 命令性规范 | 部分提高 |
Panagopoulos ( | 投票率 | 投票率3.9% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
Sénémeaud et al. ( | 献血率 | 献血率6.75% | 命令性规范 | 提高 |
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ayal et al. ( | ||||
实验一 wave1 | 逃票 | 逃票率9.97% | 无 | 无效果 |
逃票率6.27% | 高描述性 | 降低逃票行为 | ||
实验一 wave2 | 逃票 | 逃票率9.1% | 无 | 无效果 |
逃票率9.8% | 高描述性 | 降低逃票行为 | ||
Fathi et al. ( | 捐赠钱 | 捐赠率54%, 均值6.6% | 高描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
低描述性 | 提高捐赠额 | |||
Kawamura & Kusumi ( | ||||
实验一 | 捐赠钱 | / | 高描述性 | 增加捐赠金额 |
低描述性 | 无效果 | |||
实验二 | 捐赠劳动 | / | 高描述性 | 无效果 |
低描述性 | 无效果 | |||
Meleady et al. ( | ||||
实验一 | 响应环保号召, 短暂停车时熄火 | 响应率26.8% | 无 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 响应率20% | 命令性 | 提高响应率 | |
Oda & Ichihashi ( | 捐赠 | 捐赠率<7%, 均值0.012美元 | 高描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
捐赠率<6%, 均值0.009美元 | 低描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
表4 有规范干预时的眼睛效应
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 干预 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ayal et al. ( | ||||
实验一 wave1 | 逃票 | 逃票率9.97% | 无 | 无效果 |
逃票率6.27% | 高描述性 | 降低逃票行为 | ||
实验一 wave2 | 逃票 | 逃票率9.1% | 无 | 无效果 |
逃票率9.8% | 高描述性 | 降低逃票行为 | ||
Fathi et al. ( | 捐赠钱 | 捐赠率54%, 均值6.6% | 高描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
低描述性 | 提高捐赠额 | |||
Kawamura & Kusumi ( | ||||
实验一 | 捐赠钱 | / | 高描述性 | 增加捐赠金额 |
低描述性 | 无效果 | |||
实验二 | 捐赠劳动 | / | 高描述性 | 无效果 |
低描述性 | 无效果 | |||
Meleady et al. ( | ||||
实验一 | 响应环保号召, 短暂停车时熄火 | 响应率26.8% | 无 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 响应率20% | 命令性 | 提高响应率 | |
Oda & Ichihashi ( | 捐赠 | 捐赠率<7%, 均值0.012美元 | 高描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
捐赠率<6%, 均值0.009美元 | 低描述性 | 提高捐赠额 |
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|
Bateson et al. ( | 匿名付费 | 平均为每升牛奶付0.051英镑 | 提高 |
Cai et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 利己不诚实 | 控制组47.7%的人不诚实 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 利己不诚实 | / | 无效果 |
Carbon & Hesslinger ( | 帮助缺课同学、资助失业邻居、报复流氓、帮助被恐吓的少年等行为意愿 | / | 无效果 |
Ekstr?m ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率11%, 均值为回收费6% | 周围人少时提高 |
Kelsey et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 控制组捐赠均值0.008 | 提高 |
Lennon et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | / | 无效果 |
Manesi et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率30% | 无效果 |
Manesi & Pollet ( | |||
实验一 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 45%寄回 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 65%寄回 | 无效果 |
实验三 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 56.66%寄回 | 无效果 |
Mol et al. ( | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率约60% | 无效果 |
Oda et al. ( | 利他不诚实 | 平均谎报7.5%的金额 | 降低 |
Petisca et al. ( | 利己不诚实 | 普遍不诚实 | 无效果 |
Pfattheicher et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率45.8% | 无效果 |
实验二 | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率32.4% | 无效果 |
Powell et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 控制组捐赠均值0.005英镑 | 提高 |
Saunders et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率48%, 均值17.5% | 无效果 |
钟毅平 等. ( | |||
预实验 | 帮助意愿 | / | 无效果 |
实验一 | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率80% | 无效果 |
实验二 | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率60%, 均值为被试费的22% | 边缘显著提高 |
周相群 等. ( | 利己不诚实 | / | 降低 |
表5 无规范干预时的眼睛效应
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|
Bateson et al. ( | 匿名付费 | 平均为每升牛奶付0.051英镑 | 提高 |
Cai et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 利己不诚实 | 控制组47.7%的人不诚实 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 利己不诚实 | / | 无效果 |
Carbon & Hesslinger ( | 帮助缺课同学、资助失业邻居、报复流氓、帮助被恐吓的少年等行为意愿 | / | 无效果 |
Ekstr?m ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率11%, 均值为回收费6% | 周围人少时提高 |
Kelsey et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 控制组捐赠均值0.008 | 提高 |
Lennon et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | / | 无效果 |
Manesi et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率30% | 无效果 |
Manesi & Pollet ( | |||
实验一 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 45%寄回 | 无效果 |
实验二 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 65%寄回 | 无效果 |
实验三 | 帮丢信者寄信 | 56.66%寄回 | 无效果 |
Mol et al. ( | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率约60% | 无效果 |
Oda et al. ( | 利他不诚实 | 平均谎报7.5%的金额 | 降低 |
Petisca et al. ( | 利己不诚实 | 普遍不诚实 | 无效果 |
Pfattheicher et al. ( | |||
实验一 | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率45.8% | 无效果 |
实验二 | 利己不诚实 | 不诚实率32.4% | 无效果 |
Powell et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 控制组捐赠均值0.005英镑 | 提高 |
Saunders et al. ( | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率48%, 均值17.5% | 无效果 |
钟毅平 等. ( | |||
预实验 | 帮助意愿 | / | 无效果 |
实验一 | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率80% | 无效果 |
实验二 | 匿名捐赠 | 捐赠率60%, 均值为被试费的22% | 边缘显著提高 |
周相群 等. ( | 利己不诚实 | / | 降低 |
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 被试特征 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Francey & Bergmüller ( | 将公共垃圾投入垃圾桶 | 30%的人响应 | 响应者(遵守 环保规范) | 增加响应者的投入时间 |
Huang et al. ( | ||||
实验二 | 贿赂意愿 | 普遍贿赂意愿 | 集体主义取向 | 降低集体主义感高的人的贿赂意愿 |
实验三 | 贿赂意愿 | / | 水平集体主义取向 | 降低水平集体主义感高的人的贿赂意愿 |
Keller & Pfattheicher ( | ||||
实验一 | 捐赠 | 68.3%的人捐赠, 均值33% | 预防定向 | 整体提高捐赠, 更显著提高高预防定向个体的捐赠 |
实验二 | 捐赠 | 57.5%的人捐赠, 均值31% | 预防定向 | 整体增加捐赠额, 更显著提高高预防定向个体的捐赠, 降低低预防定向个体的捐赠 |
Pfattheicher ( | ||||
实验二样本一 | 捐赠 | 均值一半左右 | 预防定向 | 显著增加高预防定向个体的捐赠额, 显著降低低预防定向个体的捐赠额 |
Pfattheicher & Keller ( | ||||
实验二 | 捐赠 | 均值34.3% | 公共自我意识 | 增加高公共自我意识个体的捐赠 |
Zuo et al. ( | ||||
实验三 | 利己不诚实 | 普遍不诚实 | 流动性(高/低)的人口 | 流动性高的人口减少, 流动性低的人口增加 |
表6 眼睛效应对易感程度不同的群体的影响
研究 | 因变量 | 实际规范 | 被试特征 | 结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Francey & Bergmüller ( | 将公共垃圾投入垃圾桶 | 30%的人响应 | 响应者(遵守 环保规范) | 增加响应者的投入时间 |
Huang et al. ( | ||||
实验二 | 贿赂意愿 | 普遍贿赂意愿 | 集体主义取向 | 降低集体主义感高的人的贿赂意愿 |
实验三 | 贿赂意愿 | / | 水平集体主义取向 | 降低水平集体主义感高的人的贿赂意愿 |
Keller & Pfattheicher ( | ||||
实验一 | 捐赠 | 68.3%的人捐赠, 均值33% | 预防定向 | 整体提高捐赠, 更显著提高高预防定向个体的捐赠 |
实验二 | 捐赠 | 57.5%的人捐赠, 均值31% | 预防定向 | 整体增加捐赠额, 更显著提高高预防定向个体的捐赠, 降低低预防定向个体的捐赠 |
Pfattheicher ( | ||||
实验二样本一 | 捐赠 | 均值一半左右 | 预防定向 | 显著增加高预防定向个体的捐赠额, 显著降低低预防定向个体的捐赠额 |
Pfattheicher & Keller ( | ||||
实验二 | 捐赠 | 均值34.3% | 公共自我意识 | 增加高公共自我意识个体的捐赠 |
Zuo et al. ( | ||||
实验三 | 利己不诚实 | 普遍不诚实 | 流动性(高/低)的人口 | 流动性高的人口减少, 流动性低的人口增加 |
[1] | 陈思静, 濮雪丽, 朱玥, 汪昊, 刘建伟. (2021). 规范错觉对外出就餐中食物浪费的影响: 心理机制与应对策略. 心理学报, 53(8), 904-918. |
[2] | 邓颖, 徐富明, 李欧, 史燕伟, 刘程浩. (2016). 社会偏好中的框架效应. 心理科学进展, 24(4), 622-632. |
[3] | 李西营, 刘小先, 申继亮. (2014). 青少年创造性人格和创造性的关系: 来自中美比较的证据. 心理学探新, 34(2), 186-192. |
[4] | 李智慧, 沈志锋, 焦媛媛. (2019). 社交支持对早期用户的新产品采纳意愿影响研究——基于同侪影响和感知价值的多重中介效应. 科学学与科学技术管理, 40(11), 82-97. |
[5] | 林崇德, 杨志良, 黄希庭(主编). (2003). 心理学大辞典. 上海: 上海教育出版社. |
[6] | 尚雪松, 陈卓, 陆静怡. (2021). 帮忙失败后我会被差评吗? 好心帮倒忙中的预测偏差. 心理学报, 53(3), 291-305. |
[7] | 姚琦, 乐国安. (2009). 动机理论的新发展: 调节定向理论. 心理科学进展, 17(6), 1264-1273. |
[8] | 赵世佳. (2009). 《盲山》中个体在环境秩序中的无力追寻. 电影文学, 21, 74-75. |
[9] | 张洪家, 汪玲, 张敏. (2018). 创造性认知风格、创造性人格与创造性思维的关系. 心理与行为研究, 16(1), 51-57. |
[10] | 钟毅平, 李梅, 李琎, 占友龙. (2019). “谈钱伤感情”? 社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响. 心理与行为研究, 17(3), 368-376. |
[11] | 周相群, 严璘璘, 王哲, 胡信奎, 许跃进. (2018). 他人注视对不诚实行为的影响. 心理学探新, 38(4), 333-338. |
[12] |
Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7(3), 275-295.
doi: 10.1521/soco.1989.7.3.275 URL |
[13] |
Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50-50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607-1636.
doi: 10.3982/ECTA7384 URL |
[14] |
Ayal, S., Celse, J., & Hochman, G. (2021). Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 166, 9-19.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003 URL |
[15] |
Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J. R., Roche, M. L. R., & Nettle, D. (2013). Do images of 'watching eyes' induce behaviour that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. Plos One, 8(12), e82055.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082055 URL |
[16] |
Bateson, M., Robinson, R., Abayomi-Cole, T., Greenlees, J., O'Connor, A., & Nettle, D. (2015). Watching eyes on potential litter can reduce littering: Evidence from two field experiments. PeerJ, 3(12), e1443.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.1443 URL |
[17] |
Beyfus, T. A., Dawson, N. L., Danner, C. H., Rawal, B., Gruber, P. E., & Petrou, S. P. (2016). The use of passive visual stimuli to enhance compliance with handwashing in a perioperative setting. American Journal of Infection Control, 44(5), 496-499.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.021 pmid: 26831276 |
[18] |
Bhattacharya, S., & Singh, A. (2019). Using the concepts of positive deviance, diffusion of innovation and normal curve for planning family and community level health interventions. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 8(2), 336-341.
doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_392_18 pmid: 30984634 |
[19] |
Bittner, J. V., & Kulesz, M. M. (2015). Health promotion messages: The role of social presence for food choices. Appetite, 87, 336-343.
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.001 pmid: 25579221 |
[20] | Blackwell, C., Goya-Tocchetto, D., & Sturman, Z. (2018). Nudges in the restroom: How hand-washing can be impacted by environmental cues. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2(2), 41-47. |
[21] | Bolton, P. G. M., Rivas, K., Prachar, V., & Jones, M. P. (2015). The observer effect: Can being watched enhance compliance with hand hygiene behaviour? A randomised trial. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 10(3), GS14-GS16. |
[22] |
Boulet, L., Vermeulin, T., Vasiliu, A., Gillibert, A., Lottin, M., Frébourg, N., ... Merle, V. (2020). Lack of effect of a poster-based intervention to reduce the number of blood culture samples collected. Medecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 50(1), 78-82.
doi: S0399-077X(19)30063-0 pmid: 31640881 |
[23] |
Brown, W. J. (1992). The use of entertainment television programs for promoting prosocial messages. Howard Journal of Communications, 3(3-4), 253-266.
doi: 10.1080/10646179209359754 URL |
[24] |
Brudermann, T., Brudermann, T., Bartel, G., Bartel, G., Fenzl, T., Fenzl, T., Seebauer, S., & Seebauer, S. (2015). Eyes on social norms: A field study on an honor system for newspaper sale. Theory and Decision, 79(2), 285-306.
doi: 10.1007/s11238-014-9460-1 URL |
[25] |
Burnham, T. C., & Hare, B. (2007). Engineering human cooperation. Human Nature, 18(2), 88-108.
doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9012-2 URL |
[26] |
Burum, B., Nowak, M. A., & Hoffman, M. (2020). An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1245-1257.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4 pmid: 33046859 |
[27] |
Cai, W., Huang, X., Wu, S., & Kou, Y. (2015). Dishonest behavior is not affected by an image of watching eyes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 110-116.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.007 URL |
[28] |
Carbon, C.-C., & Hesslinger, V. M. (2011). Bateson et al.’s (2006) cues-of-being-watched paradigm revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70 (4), 203-210.
doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000058 URL |
[29] |
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 URL |
[30] | Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. |
[31] |
Collins, E. L., & Zoch, L. M. (2001). Targeting the young, the poor, the less educated: Thinking beyond traditional media. Public Relations Review, 27(2), 197-212.
doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00080-7 URL |
[32] |
Darley, J. M., & Beniger, J. R. (1981). Diffusion of energy- conserving innovations. Journal of Social Issues, 37(2), 150-171.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02630.x URL |
[33] | Dear, K. (2018). Towards a psychology of surveillance: Do ‘watching eyes’ affect behaviour? (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Oxford. |
[34] |
Dear, K., Dutton, K., & Fox, E. (2019). Do ‘watching eyes’ influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 269-280.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.006 URL |
[35] |
Dearing, J. W., Rogers, E. M., Meyer, G., Casey, M. K., Rao, N., Campo, S., & Henderson, G. M. (1996). Social marketing and diffusion-based strategies for communicating with unique populations: HIV prevention in San francisco. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 343-363.
pmid: 10947368 |
[36] |
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to pro-social and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119.
pmid: 3562705 |
[37] |
Ekström, M. (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530-546.
doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6 URL |
[38] |
Ernest-Jones, M., Nettle, D., & Bateson, M. (2011). Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 172-178.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006 URL |
[39] |
Fathi, M., Bateson, M., & Nettle, D. (2014). Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 878-887.
pmid: 25331033 |
[40] |
Fehr, E., & Schneider, F. (2010). Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: Are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1686), 1315-1323.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1900 URL |
[41] |
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.
doi: 10.1037/h0076760 URL |
[42] |
Fetchenhauer, D., & Dunning, D. (2010). Why so cynical? Asymmetric feedback underlies misguided skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of others. Psychological Science, 21(2), 189-193.
doi: 10.1177/0956797609358586 pmid: 20424043 |
[43] |
Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 128-143.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128 pmid: 18605856 |
[44] |
Francey, D., & Bergmüller, R. (2012). Images of eyes enhance investments in a real-life public good. Plos One, 7(5), e37397.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037397 URL |
[45] |
Gaube, S., Tsivrikos, D., Dollinger, D., & Lermer, E. (2018). How a smiley protects health: A pilot intervention to improve hand hygiene in hospitals by activating injunctive norms through emoticons. Plos One, 13(5), e0197465.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197465 URL |
[46] |
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, 12(3), 211-223.
doi: 10.1023/A:1011122126881 URL |
[47] | Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2002). Riding the saddle: How cross-market communications can create a major slump in sales. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 1-16. |
[48] |
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 245-256.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002 URL |
[49] |
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.
pmid: 3615707 |
[50] |
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 URL |
[51] |
Huang, Z.-W., Liu, L., Zheng, W.-W., Tan, X.-Y., & Zhao, X. (2015). Walking the straight and narrow: The moderating effect of evaluation apprehension on the relationship between collectivism and corruption. Plos One, 10(3), e0123859.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123859 URL |
[52] | Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. |
[53] |
Kawamura, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2017). The norm-dependent effect of watching eyes on donation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 659-666.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.05.003 URL |
[54] |
Keller, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 363-372.
doi: 10.1002/per.797 URL |
[55] | Keep Britain Tidy. (2014). Keeping an eye on it. Retrieved from https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/sites/default/files/resource/Keeping%20an%20eye%20on%20it_Final%20report.pdf |
[56] |
Kelsey, C., Vaish, A., & Grossmann, T. (2018). Eyes, more than other facial features, enhance real-world donation behavior. Human Nature, 29(4), 390-401.
doi: 10.1007/s12110-018-9327-1 URL |
[57] |
King, D., Vlaev, I., Everett-Thomas, R., Fitzpatrick, M., Darzi, A., & Birnbach, D. J. (2016). “Priming” hand hygiene compliance in clinical environments. Health Psychology, 35(1), 96-101.
doi: 10.1037/hea0000239 URL |
[58] |
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127-147.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x URL |
[59] |
Lennon, P., Grant, R., & Montrose, T. (2017). Stylized and photographic eye images do not increase charitable donations in a field experiment. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioural Science, 8(2), 28-31.
doi: 10.5178/lebs.2017.60 URL |
[60] |
Luo, Y., Zhang, S., Tao, R., & Geng, H. (2016). The power of subliminal and supraliminal eye contact on social decision making: An individual-difference perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 131-140.
doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.001 pmid: 26821242 |
[61] |
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17(7), 484-495.
doi: 10.1037/h0046541 URL |
[62] |
Manesi, Z., & Pollet, T. (2017). No support for the watching eyes effect across three" lost letter" field experiments. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 8(1), 12-15.
doi: 10.5178/lebs.2017.56 URL |
[63] | Manesi, Z., Van Lange, P. A., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Eyes wide open: Only eyes that pay attention promote prosocial behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1-15. |
[64] |
Manesi, Z., Van Lange, P. A., Van Doesum, N. J., & Pollet, T. V. (2019). What are the most powerful predictors of charitable giving to victims of typhoon Haiyan: Prosocial traits, socio-demographic variables, or eye cues? Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 217-225.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.024 |
[65] |
Matland, R. E., & Murray, G. R. (2016). I only have eyes for you: Does implicit social pressure increase voter turnout? Political Psychology, 37(4), 533-550.
doi: 10.1111/pops.12275 URL |
[66] |
Meleady, R., Abrams, D., Van de Vyver, J., Hopthrow, T., Mahmood, L., Player, A., ... Leite, A. C. (2017). Surveillance or self-surveillance? Behavioral cues can increase the rate of drivers’ pro-environmental behavior at a long wait stop. Environment and Behavior, 49(10), 1156-1172.
doi: 10.1177/0013916517691324 pmid: 29200472 |
[67] |
Mobekk, H., Hessen, D. O., Fagerstrøm, A., & Jacobsen, H. (2020). For your eyes only: A field experiment on nudging hygienic behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 603440.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603440 URL |
[68] |
Mol, J. M., van der Heijden, E., & Potters, J. J. (2020). (Not) alone in the world: Cheating in the presence of a virtual observer. Experimental Economics, 23(4), 961-978.
doi: 10.1007/s10683-020-09644-0 URL |
[69] |
Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 638-662.
pmid: 12081086 |
[70] | Nehme, E. K., Perez, A., Ranjit, N., Amick III, B. C., & Kohl III, H. W. (2016). Behavioral theory and transportation cycling research: Application of Diffusion of Innovations. Journal of Transport & Health, 3(3), 346-356. |
[71] |
Neighbors, C., Lewis, M. A., Bergstrom, R. L., & Larimer, M. E. (2006). Being controlled by normative influences: Self-determination as a moderator of a normative feedback alcohol intervention. Health Psychology, 25(5), 571-579.
pmid: 17014274 |
[72] |
Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: It’s not how much you give, it’s being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.004 URL |
[73] |
Nettle, D., Nott, K., & Bateson, M. (2012). ‘Cycle thieves, we are watching you’: Impact of a simple signage intervention against bicycle theft. Plos One, 7(12), e51738.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051738 URL |
[74] |
Northover, S. B., Pedersen, W. C., Cohen, A. B., & Andrews, P. W. (2017). Artificial surveillance cues do not increase generosity: Two meta-analyses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(1), 144-153.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.07.001 URL |
[75] | Oda, R., & Ichihashi, R. (2016). Effects of eye images and norm cues on charitable donation: A field experiment in an izakaya. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), Article 1474704916668874. |
[76] | Oda, R., Kato, Y., & Hiraishi, K. (2015). The watching-eye effect on prosocial lying. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1-5. |
[77] |
Oda, R., Niwa, Y., Honma, A., & Hiraishi, K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 166-171.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.002 URL |
[78] |
Ozaki, R. (2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: What makes consumers sign up to green electricity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 1-17.
doi: 10.1002/bse.650 URL |
[79] |
Panagopoulos, C. (2014a). I've got my eyes on you: Implicit social-pressure cues and prosocial behavior. Political Psychology, 35(1), 23-33.
doi: 10.1111/pops.12074 URL |
[80] |
Panagopoulos, C. (2014b). Watchful eyes: Implicit observability cues and voting. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(4), 279-284.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.02.008 URL |
[81] |
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61-67.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017 URL |
[82] |
Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichliter, J. S., Cashin, J. R., & Presley, C. A. (1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47(6), 253-258.
pmid: 10368559 |
[83] |
Perkins, J. M., Nyakato, V. N., Kakuhikire, B., Mbabazi, P. K., Perkins, H. W., Tsai, A. C., ... Bangsberg, D. R. (2018). Actual versus perceived HIV testing norms, and personal HIV testing uptake: A cross-sectional, population-based study in rural Uganda. AIDS and Behavior, 22(2), 616-628.
doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1691-z pmid: 28233075 |
[84] |
Perkins, J. M., Perkins, H. W., & Craig, D. W. (2020). Norms and attitudes about being an active bystander: Support for telling adults about seeing knives or guns at school among Greater London youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 849-868.
doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01127-7 pmid: 31768740 |
[85] |
Perkins, J. M., Perkins, H. W., Jurinsky, J., & Craig, D. W. (2019). Adolescent tobacco use and misperceptions of social norms across schools in the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(6), 659-668.
pmid: 31790356 |
[86] | Petisca, S., Paiva, A., & Esteves, F. (2020, October). The effect of a robotic agent on dishonest behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Scotland UK. |
[87] |
Pfattheicher, S. (2015). A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: The impact of prevention-focused self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 932-942.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9501-2 URL |
[88] |
Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 560-566.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2122 URL |
[89] |
Pfattheicher, S., Schindler, S., & Nockur, L. (2019). On the impact of Honesty-Humility and a cue of being watched on cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 159-174.
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.004 |
[90] |
Pfattheicher, S., Strauch, C., Diefenbacher, S., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 188-194.
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12501 URL |
[91] |
Powell, K. L., Roberts, G., & Nettle, D. (2012). Eye images increase charitable donations: Evidence from an opportunistic field experiment in a supermarket. Ethology, 118(11), 1096-1101.
doi: 10.1111/eth.12011 URL |
[92] |
Puska, P., Koskela, K., McAlister, A., Mäyränen, H., Smolander, A., Moisio, S., ... Rogers, E. M. (1986). Use of lay opinion leaders to promote diffusion of health innovations in a community programme: Lessons learned from the North Karelia project. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 64(3), 437-446.
pmid: 3490321 |
[93] |
Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393-409.
doi: 10.1111/comt.12080 URL |
[94] | Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press. |
[95] |
Saunders, T. J., Taylor, A. H., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2016). No evidence that a range of artificial monitoring cues influence online donations to charity in an MTurk sample. Royal Society Open Science, 3(10), 150710.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.150710 URL |
[96] |
Sénémeaud, C., Sanrey, C., Callé, N., Plainfossé, C., Belhaire, A., & Georget, P. (2017). The watching-eyes phenomenon and blood donation: Does exposure to pictures of eyes increase blood donation by young adults? Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 56(2), 168-170.
doi: S1473-0502(16)30168-9 pmid: 27887885 |
[97] |
Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663-1674.
doi: 10.1177/0956797617719950 pmid: 28961062 |
[98] | Stella, S. A., Stace, R. J., Knepper, B. C., Reese, S. M., Keniston, A., Burden, M., & Young, H. L. (2019). The effect of eye images and a social norms message on healthcare provider hand hygiene adherence. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 40(7), 748-754. |
[99] |
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118 URL |
[100] |
Van den Bulte, C., & Joshi, Y. V. (2007). New product diffusion with influentials and imitators. Marketing Science, 26(3), 400-421.
doi: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0224 URL |
[101] |
Van Lange, P. A. (2015). Generalized trust: Four lessons from genetics and culture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 71-76.
doi: 10.1177/0963721414552473 URL |
[102] |
Xiong, H., Payne, D., & Kinsella, S. (2016). Peer effects in the diffusion of innovations: Theory and simulation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 63, 1-13.
doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.017 URL |
[103] | Yang, Q., Sang, T., Wu, Z., Liang, R., Wang, F., Wang, H., ... Zhou, X. (2021). Increasing hand-hygiene compliance in clinical settings using a baby-eyes sticker: A field study. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1-10. |
[104] |
Zuo, S., Huang, N., Cai, P., & Wang, F. (2018). The lure of antagonistic social strategy in unstable socioecological environment: Residential mobility facilitates individuals' antisocial behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(3), 364-371.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.002 URL |
[1] | 吴佳桧, 傅海伦, 张玉环. 感知社会支持与学生学业成就关系的元分析:学习投入的中介作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 552-569. |
[2] | 钟越, 车敬上, 刘楠, 安薪如, 李爱梅, 周国林. 压力下一搏:压力如何影响个体风险寻求[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(6): 1303-1316. |
[3] | 毕翠华, 齐怀远. 时间感知在跨期决策中的作用——时间决策模型的新探索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 1106-1118. |
[4] | 赵信娴, 杨小虎. 老年人群的韵律感知[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(3): 613-621. |
[5] | 骆紫薇, 吴毓婷. 福至心灵:幸运感知对消费行为的影响及其理论解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(2): 464-474. |
[6] | 李黎飞, 卫旭华, 程德俊. 职场负面八卦对被八卦员工行为的影响: 基于认知-情感人格系统理论的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2681-2695. |
[7] | 栾墨, 吴霜. 消费决策过程如何彰显社会地位?基于最优化决策策略的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(10): 2194-2205. |
[8] | 柳王娟, 定险峰, 程晓荣, 范炤. 序列依赖效应——一种全新的“历史效应”[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(10): 2228-2239. |
[9] | 金杨华, 陈世伟, 朱玥, 谢江佩. 工作场所中他人感知的员工工作-家庭冲突:刻板印象视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(1): 230-238. |
[10] | 崔馨月, 李斌, 贺汝婉, 张淑颖, 雷励. 亲社会支出对主观幸福感的影响及其作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(7): 1279-1290. |
[11] | 李朋波, 陈黎梅, 褚福磊, 孙雨晴, 周莹. 我是高材生:资质过剩感及其对员工的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(7): 1313-1330. |
[12] | 王晓田, 王娜, 何金波. 前瞻性情绪作为社会风险的信息源假说:公共场景下风险决策的情绪及文化机制探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 959-966. |
[13] | 何蔚祺, 李帅霞, 赵东方. 群体面孔情绪感知的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 761-772. |
[14] | 谢志鹏, 肖婷婷, 秦环宇. 文字的“偷心术”:营销中的字体效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 365-380. |
[15] | 李馨, 刘培, 肖晨洁, 王笑天, 李爱梅. 组织中权力如何促进亲社会行为?责任感知的中介作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1586-1598. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||