全人类认同提升亲社会心理和行为及其解释机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01697

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在中国提出构建人类命运共同体的全球背景下, 从心理学的视角探讨全人类认同对亲社会心理和行为的影响及其解释机制至关重要。全人类认同指将全体人类视为内群体, 并关心人类大家庭中的所有成员。全人类认同对于个体的亲社会心理和行为具有提升作用, 主要表现在群际交往、环境可持续以及公共卫生危机应对三个领域。全人类认同影响亲社会心理和行为的机制主要有关联性、责任、义务以及情绪, 但当前这四项因素彼此间存在一定的交互作用。未来应深入探究全人类认同作用于亲社会心理和行为的综合理论模型、进化和生物机制以及边界条件, 考察人工智能浪潮对全人类认同与亲社会心理和行为关系的影响, 以及全球化视野下二者关系的文化变异。

关键词: 全人类认同, 亲社会心理和行为, 群际交往, 环境可持续, 公共卫生危机

Abstract:

As globalization advances, individuals may develop an increased awareness and concern for the entire human race. “Identification with all humanity (IWAH)” captures this psychological trait, encompassing the recognition of all humans as part of one’s ingroup and fostering care for every member of the global human family. Building on the clarification of the concept and measurement of IWAH, our current work aims to explore the relationships between IWAH and prosocial psychology and behaviors across diverse domains. Additionally, we seek to uncover the psychological mechanisms underlying them. Our goal is to provide researchers and policymakers with a deeper understanding of IWAH and its effects, fostering global cooperation to address pressing challenges and build a more peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

The concept of IWAH was proposed by McFarland and colleagues, encompassing two dimensions: bond and concern. The bond dimension implies a sense of social membership, indicating a cognitive and emotional connection with the humanity. The concern dimension refers to a willingness to help and care for others and a sense of responsibility towards the human well-being. Given the comprehensiveness of the concept and the effectiveness and reliability of its measurement tools, IWAH has attracted widespread attention across the globe.

Taking the social identity theory and common ingroup identity model, previous research has found that IWAH had significant effects on prosocial psychology and behaviors across diverse domains, including intergroup interactions, environmental sustainability, and public health crises responses. Regarding intergroup interactions, previous studies have found that IWAH promoted individuals' willingness to help others, fosters close relationships with ethnically diverse partners, increases intergroup forgiveness, and enhances concern for global equity and global justice. Caring for the welfare of humanity as a whole may motivate individuals to take environmental issues seriously and adopt behaviors that promote environmental sustainability. Research on IWAH and pro-environmental behaviors has confirmed a robust positive correlation between them. Prior research on responses to public health crises has revealed a positive relationship with IWAH and proactive health behaviors, such as maintaining physical distance and wearing masks. It is noteworthy that the contextual activation of IWAH does not significantly influence health behaviors during pandemics, and the two dimensions of IWAH have distinct roles in responding to public health crises.

According to the theory of planned behavior, the theory of psychological distance, the norm activation model, and existing studies, we proposed that the positive effects of IWAH operated through multiple factors such as relevance, responsibility, obligation, and emotional processes. Relevance, which refers to how people appraise and relate themselves to others and social issues, the stronger the relevance, the closer the psychological distance. The bond to humanity increases individuals' perceived relevance to others and social issues, heightening the urgency and necessity to assist those nearby and address problems, thereby promoting prosocial attitude and behaviors. Identifying as part of humanity motivates individuals to prioritize the interests of humanity as a whole, which can inspire a sense of responsibility towards social issues and lead to prosocial behaviors. Similarly, IWAH may deepen an individual's understanding of interdependence with others and the larger environment, enhancing the sense of obligation to safeguard the interests of humanity, and thus promote prosocial psychology and behaviors. IWAH enhances individuals’ perceptions of humans globally as highly similar to themselves, fostering sympathy and empathy for victims and thereby promoting prosocial psychology and behaviors. In addition, individuals' negative emotional responses to actions harmful to human interests and positive emotional responses to actions defending these interests may mediate the relationship between IWAH and pro-sociality.

However, the interaction among the four psychological constructs mentioned above is complex, necessitating the exploration of a comprehensive psychological mechanism model. Future research should investigate the evolutionary and biological mechanisms underlying the impacts of IWAH on prosocial psychology and behavior, as well as the boundary conditions of those effects. Additionally, it is highly recommended to probe how this relationship evolves in the era of artificial intelligence and the cultural variations within the context of globalization.

Key words: identification with all humanity, prosocial behavior, intergroup interaction, environmental sustainability, public health crises

中图分类号:

B849: C91

赵偲琪, 刘若婷, 胡晓檬. (2024). 全人类认同提升亲社会心理和行为及其解释机制. 心理科学进展 , 32(10), 1697-1708.

ZHAO Siqi, LIU Ruoting, HU Xiaomeng. (2024). Identification with all humanity promotes prosocial psychological processes and behavioral patterns and its underlying mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(10), 1697-1708.

参考文献 90

[1]	陈杰. (2021). 家国情怀、人类情怀与人类命运共同体的构建. 中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版), 23(2), 1-12.
[2]	高海龙, 李从玉. (2023). 国际政治格局演变的新趋势及其应对. 人民论坛, (18), 91-93.
[3]	何宁, 游旭群. (2023). 人类命运共同体构建的社会心理基础与实现路径. 陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 52(4), 5-14.
[4]	李爱敏. (2016). “人类命运共同体”: 理论本质、基本内涵与中国特色. 中共福建省委党校学报, (2), 96-102.
[5]	聂励. (2020). 人类共同体思想的探索与实践——中西方比较的视角. 学术探索, (5), 36-42.
[6]	文红玉, 魏晋. (2024). 论习近平文化思想的共同体元素. 理论月刊, (1), 5-11.
[7]	肖凤秋, 郑志伟, 陈英和. (2014). 亲社会行为产生机制的理论演进. 心理科学, 37(5), 1263-1270.
[8]	薛嘉欣, 刘满芝, 赵忠春, 李宗波. (2019). 亲环境行为的概念与形成机制:基于拓展的MOA模型. 心理研究, 12(2), 144-153.
[9]	岳童, 黄希庭, 刘光远. (2018). 催产素对共情反应的影响及其作用机制. 心理科学进展, 26(3), 442-453. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00442
[10]	Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature (Wolfe, W., Trans.). Greenberg.
[11]	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
[12]	Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Doubleday & Company, Inc.
[13]	Ariely, G. (2016). Global identification, xenophobia and globalisation: A cross-national exploration. International Journal of Psychology, 52(S1), 87-96.
[14]	Aydin, E., Bagci, S. C., & Kelesoglu, İ. (2022). Love for the globe but also the country matter for the environment: Links between nationalistic, patriotic, global identification and pro-environmentalism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80, 101755.
[15]	Barragan, R. C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2023). Prosociality and health: Identification with all humanity is a replicable predictor of prosocial motivation for health behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1052713.
[16]	Barragan, R. C., Oliveira, N., Khalvati, K., Brooks, R., Reinecke, K., Rao, R. P. N., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2021). Identifying with all humanity predicts cooperative health behaviors and helpful responding during COVID-19. Plos One, 16(3), e0248234.
[17]	Bassett, J. F., & Cleveland, A. J. (2019). Identification with all humanity, support for refugees and for extreme counter- terrorism measures. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 310-334.
[18]	Brooks, J., Onishi, E., Clark, I. R., Bohn, M., & Yamamoto, S. (2021). Uniting against a common enemy: Perceived outgroup threat elicits ingroup cohesion in chimpanzees. Plos One, 16(2), e0246869.
[19]	Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1-30.
[20]	Carmona, M., Guerra, R., Dovidio, J. F., Hofhuis, J., & Sindic, D. (2022). Unpacking all-inclusive superordinate categories: Comparing correlates and consequences of global citizenship and human identities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 986075.
[21]	Carmona, M., Sindic, D., Guerra, R., & Hofhuis, J. (2020). Human and global identities: Different prototypical meanings of all-inclusive identities. Political Psychology, 41(5), 961-978.
[22]	Chan, H. -W., Pong, V., & Tam, K. -P. (2020). Explaining participation in Earth Hour: The identity perspective and the theory of planned behavior. Climatic Change, 158(3-4), 309-325.
[23]	Chen, S. X., Ng, J. C. K., Hui, B. P. H., Au, A. K. Y., Lam, B. C. P., Wu, W. C. H., ... Liu, J. H. (2023). Global consciousness predicts behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from 35 cultures. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(5), 662-671. doi: 10.1177/19485506221124392 pmid: 37220500
[24]	Deng, X. (2021). Identification with all humanity and willingness to help people in COVID-19 affected countries: Testing a moderated mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, 111012.
[25]	Dong, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., & Jiang, J. (2023). Perceived descriptive norms strengthen the global human identification— general pro-environmental behavior association: Empirical evidence from survey studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 418, 138134.
[26]	Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination:Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 3-28). SAGE Publications Ltd.
[27]	Dunwoody, P. T., & McFarland, S. G. (2018). Support for anti-Muslim policies: The role of political traits and threat perception. Political Psychology, 39(1), 89-106.
[28]	Eisenberg, N., VanSchyndel, S. K., & Hofer, C. (2015). The association of maternal socialization in childhood and adolescence with adult offsprings’ sympathy/caring. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 7-16. doi: 10.1037/a0038137 pmid: 25383690
[29]	Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. Norton.
[30]	Feng, Y., Warmenhoven, H., Wilson, A., Jin, Y., Chen, R., Wang, Y., & Hamer, K. (2023). The Identification With All Humanity (IWAH) Scale: Its psychometric properties and associations with help-seeking during COVID-19. Current Psychology, 42(29), 25485-25497.
[31]	Furlong, C., & Vignoles, V. L. (2021). Social identification in collective climate activism: Predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity, 21(1), 20-35.
[32]	Gallese, V. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19(5), 519-536.
[33]	Hamer, K., López Pérez, D., Drogosz, M., & Goworek, H. (2022). The dynamics of dyadic interactions between people of different ethnicities depend on their identification with all humanity. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 21671.
[34]	Hamer, K., McFarland, S., & Penczek, M. (2019). What lies beneath? Predictors of identification with all humanity. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 258-267. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.019
[35]	Hamer, K., Penczek, M., & Bilewicz, M. (2017). “Humanum ignoscere est”. The relationship of national and supranational identifications with intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 257-263.
[36]	Hamer, K., Penczek, M., & Bilewicz, M. (2018). Between universalistic and defensive forms of group attachment. The indirect effects of national identification on intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 15-20.
[37]	Hamer, K., Penczek, M., McFarland, S., Wlodarczyk, A., Łużniak-Piecha, M., Golińska, A., ... Delouvée, S. (2021). Identification with all humanity—A test of the factorial structure and measurement invariance of the scale in five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 157-174.
[38]	Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18-26.
[39]	Haslam, S. A., Ellemers, N., Reicher, S. D., Reynolds, K. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2010). The social identity perspective today:The impact of its defining ideas. In T. Postmes, & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity: Core sources (pp. 341-356). Psychology Press.
[40]	Henderson, M. D., Huang, S., & Chang, C. A. (2012). When others cross psychological distance to help: Highlighting prosocial actions toward outgroups encourages philanthropy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 220-225.
[41]	Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89-131.
[42]	Jackson, J. C., Castelo, N., & Gray, K. (2020). Could a rising robot workforce make humans less prejudiced? American Psychologist, 75(7), 969-982.
[43]	Janmaimool, P., & Khajohnmanee, S. (2020). Enhancing university students’ global citizenship, public mindedness, and moral quotient for promoting sense of environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behaviours. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22( 2), 957-970.
[44]	Joanes, T. (2019). Personal norms in a globalized world: Norm-activation processes and reduced clothing consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 941-949. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.191
[45]	Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., & Li, N. P. (2015). Evolutionary social psychology. InD. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 803-827). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[46]	Kim, W., Che, C., & Jeong, C. (2021). Hotel guests’ psychological distance of climate change and environment-friendly behavior intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 16.
[47]	Kolesovs, A. (2022). Sense of country: General and specific factors covary with social identification and predict emigration plans. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 992028.
[48]	Lantos, N. A., Engyel, M., Hadarics, M., Nyúl, B., Csaba, S., & Kende, A. (2022). Identification with all humanity predicts prosocial and political action intentions during COVID-19. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, 855148.
[49]	Leary, M. R. (2019). Hypo-egoic identity, prejudice, and intergroup relations. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 26( 3), 335-346.
[50]	Loy, L. S., & Reese, G. (2019). Hype and hope? Mind-body practice predicts pro-environmental engagement through global identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 66, 101340.
[51]	Loy, L. S., Reese, G., & Spence, A. (2022). Facing a common human fate: Relating global identity and climate change mitigation. Political Psychology, 43(3), 563-581.
[52]	Loy, L. S., Tröger, J., Prior, P., & Reese, G. (2021). Global citizens-global jet setters? The relation between global identity, sufficiency orientation, travelling, and a socio-ecological transformation of the mobility system. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 622842.
[53]	Malsch, A. M. (2005). Prosocial behavior beyond borders: Understanding a psychological sense of global community (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Claremont Graduate University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
[54]	Marchlewska, M., Hamer, K., Baran, M., Górska, P., & Kaniasty, K. (2022). COVID-19: Why do people refuse vaccination? The role of social identities and conspiracy beliefs: Evidence from nationwide samples of polish adults. Vaccines, 10(2), 268.
[55]	Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
[56]	McFarland, S. (2011). The slow creation of humanity. Political Psychology, 32(1), 1-20.
[57]	McFarland, S. (2015). Culture, individual differences, and support for human rights: A general review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(1), 10-27.
[58]	McFarland, S. (2017). Identification with all humanity:The antithesis of prejudice, and more. In S. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), Cambridge handbook on the psychology of prejudice (pp. 632-654). Cambridge University Press.
[59]	McFarland, S., & Brown, D. (2008). Who believes that identification with all humanity is ethical? Psicología Política, 36, 37-49.
[60]	McFarland, S., Hackett, J., Hamer, K., Katzarska-Miller, I., Malsch, A., Reese, G., & Reysen, S. (2019). Global human identification and citizenship: A review of psychological studies. Political Psychology, 40(S1), 141-171.
[61]	McFarland, S., & Hornsby, W. (2015). An analysis of five measures of global human identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(7), 806-817.
[62]	McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853. doi: 10.1037/a0028724 pmid: 22708625
[63]	Mischkowski, D., & Glöckner, A. (2016). Spontaneous cooperation for prosocials, but not for proselfs: Social value orientation moderates spontaneous cooperation behavior. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 21555.
[64]	Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 887-907. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000068 pmid: 26371400
[65]	Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141-153.
[66]	Pfattheicher, S., Nockur, L., Böhm, R., Sassenrath, C., & Petersen, M. B. (2020). The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1363-1373.
[67]	Plante, C. N., Roberts, S. E., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2014). “One of us”: Engagement with fandoms and global citizenship identification. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(1), 49-64.
[68]	Pong, V. (2021). Global versus local framing of the issue of food waste: The role of Identification with all humanity and the implications for climate change communication. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 221-231.
[69]	Pong, V., & Tam, K. -P. (2023). Relationship between global identity and pro-environmental behavior and environmental concern: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1033564.
[70]	Reese, G., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2012). We are the world—and they are not: Prototypicality for the world community, legitimacy, and responses to global inequality. Political Psychology, 33(5), 683-700.
[71]	Reese, G., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2016). As high as it gets: Ingroup projection processes in the superordinate group humans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 39-49.
[72]	Reese, G., & Kohlmann, F. (2015). Feeling global, acting ethically: Global identification and fairtrade consumption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(2), 98-106.
[73]	Reese, G., Proch, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2014). Individual differences in responses to global inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14(1), 217-238.
[74]	Reese, G., Proch, J., & Finn, C. (2015). Identification with all humanity: The role of self-definition and self-investment: Global self-definition and self-investment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(4), 426-440.
[75]	Renger, D., & Reese, G. (2017). From equality-based respect to environmental activism: Antecedents and consequences of global identity. Political Psychology, 38(5), 867-879.
[76]	Reysen, S., & Hackett, J. (2016). Further examination of the factor structure and validity of the Identification with All Humanity Scale. Current Psychology, 35(4), 711-719.
[77]	Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.701749 pmid: 22804560
[78]	Römpke, A. -K., Fritsche, I., & Reese, G. (2019). Get together, feel together, act together: International personal contact increases identification with humanity and global collective action. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 35-48.
[79]	Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (pp. 221-279). Academic Press.
[80]	Sparkman, D. J. (2023). Identification with humanity and health-related behaviors during COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(6), 1389-1409.
[81]	Sparkman, D. J., & Hamer, K. (2020). Seeing the human in everyone: Multicultural experiences predict more positive intergroup attitudes and humanitarian helping through identification with all humanity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 79, 121-134.
[82]	Sparkman, D. J., Kleive, K., & Ngu, E. (2022). Does activating the human identity improve health-related behaviors during COVID-19? A social identity approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810805.
[83]	Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943-956. pmid: 16738027
[84]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 pmid: 20438233
[85]	Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Blackwell.
[86]	Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
[87]	Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454-463.
[88]	Uluğ, Ö. M., Solak, N., & Kanık, B. (2022). Shared humanity, awareness of socio-economic privilege, and classism during the pandemic as predictors of supporting equal socio-economic policies. Current Psychology, 41(10), 7416-7428.
[89]	Vanman, E. J., & Kappas, A. (2019). “Danger, Will Robinson!” The challenges of social robots for intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(8), e12489.
[90]	Wang, C., & Peng, K. (2023). AI Experience predicts identification with humankind. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(2), 89.