ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (6): 794-813.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00794

• • 上一篇    下一篇



  1.  (中山大学中国公共管理研究中心、政治与公共事务管理学院, 广州 510275)
  • 收稿日期:2016-09-30 出版日期:2017-06-25 发布日期:2020-12-07
  • 通讯作者: 张书维, E-mail: E-mail:E-mail:
  • 基金资助:
     国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(71301170)、国家社会科学基金重大项目(13&ZD041; 13&ZD011; 16ZDA110)

 Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention

 ZHANG Shuwei   

  1.  (Center for Chinese Public Administration Research; School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)
  • Received:2016-09-30 Online:2017-06-25 Published:2020-12-07
  • Contact: ZHANG Shuwei, E-mail: E-mail:E-mail:
  • Supported by:

摘要:  社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任, 并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平, 将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任, 采用实验室情境设计的方法, 引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式, 通过2个实验系统探讨“公正无私, 一言而万民齐”的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向, 在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型: 外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任, 进而触发公共合作; 内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任, 进而触发公共合作; 二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。

关键词:  分配公平, 程序公平, 工具信任, 动机信任, 最后通牒博弈, 免责博弈, 公共物品困境

Abstract:  Social justice is one of human's long pursuit, as well as core values of social governance in contemporary China. People’s perception of social justice affects their institutional trust, which in turn influences their cooperation with government. However, for the lack of empirical research on the relationship between public cooperation and social justice or institutional trust, there is no evidence of the process from social justice to public cooperation in individual-institution interaction. This research consisting of three studies focused on the mechanism under which social justice has an impact on cooperation through the mediating effect of institutional trust in public good dilemmas by using the methods of laboratory experiment. Furthermore, ultimatum game and impunity game were creatively used in individual-institution interaction to successfully manipulate social justice. Social justice includes distributive justice and procedural justice. In addition, institutional trust is divided into instrumental trust and motive-based trust. Pre-study investigated the ratio of distributive justice in ultimatum game, which was the base of study 1 and study 2. Study 1 aims to find the dual-pathway model from social justice to public cooperation through one pathway of instrumental trust and another pathway of motive-based trust in the organizational context. Moreover, the purpose of study 2 is extending this dual-pathway model to the social context. The results indicated that: First, people with high distributive justice were more likely to participate in public cooperation than those with low distributive justice. Meanwhile, people with high procedural justice were also more likely to participate in public cooperation than those with low procedural justice. Second, both distributive justice and procedural justice positively influenced public cooperation intention (PCI) at the same time. One the other hand, both instrumental trust and motive-based trust partially mediated the relation between social justice and PCI. This fact supported the “dual-pathway model of PCI”. In general, the total effect of distributive justice on PCI was stronger than that of procedural justice. An important theoretical implication of this research is setup of the dual-pathway model to public cooperation intention with organizations and governments in the organizational and social contexts. In addition, the current series of studies provide some useful experimental paradigms (e.g., ultimatum game and impunity game) for manipulating social justice. Regarding the practical implications, this research examines the social psychological motivation mechanism underlying public cooperation in China to help managers and administrators understand how to improve individuals’ cooperation with institution.

Key words:  distributive justice, procedural justice, instrumental trust, motive-based trust, ultimatum game, impunity game, public good dilemmas