ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (11): 1244-1259.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01244

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇


魏新东1, 汪凤炎2,3()   

  1. 1南京信息工程大学教师教育学院, 南京 210044
    3南京师范大学道德教育研究所, 南京 210097
  • 收稿日期:2020-10-09 发布日期:2021-09-23 出版日期:2021-11-25
  • 通讯作者: 汪凤炎
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(31971014);2020年度江苏省第五期“333 高层次人才培养工程”科研资助项目“文化对个体智慧表现的影响及机制”资助

The influence of culture on wise reasoning in the context of self-friend conflict and its mechanism

WEI Xindong1, WANG Fengyan2,3()   

  1. 1School of Teacher Education, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
    2School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
    3Institute of Moral Education Research, Nanjing Normal University; Nanjing 210097, China
  • Received:2020-10-09 Online:2021-09-23 Published:2021-11-25
  • Contact: WANG Fengyan


相对于面对自己的人际冲突, 以独立自我为主的西方人在面对朋友的人际冲突时表现更智慧(所罗门悖论)。在以互依自我为主的中国人身上所罗门悖论是否会有不同特点?研究1通过在线平台招募中美两国被试, 随机分配到自我与朋友冲突组考察其智慧推理水平, 并考察自我类型的影响。对齐法与方差分析的结果均显示美国文化下朋友组智慧推理显著高于自我组, 而中国文化下两组差异不显著, 进一步分析发现中国文化下独立自我与冲突类型的交互项显著预测智慧推理。在此基础上, 研究2~4在中国文化背景下, 通过启动不同自我类型, 考察个体在自我或朋友冲突组中的智慧推理差异, 结果显示启动独立自我的朋友组显著高于自我组, 而启动互依自我的两组差异不显著。研究表明所罗门悖论可能只存在独立自我高的人身上, 并不具有普适性。可见心理学研究除了关注样本多样性问题外, 更需关注使用单一样本却默认结论具有文化普适性的研究者。

关键词: 智慧, 自我, 智慧推理, 文化差异, 对齐法


Wisdom involves certain types of pragmatic reasoning to navigate challenges in social life. Scholars presented aspects of wise reasoning that include perspective taking, consideration of change and alternatives, intellectual humility, search for compromise, and adopting an outsider’s vantage point. Researchers have found that most WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) people can reason more wisely about friends’ social problems than their own (i.e., Solomon’s paradox). However, it is not clear whether Solomon’s paradox will exhibit different characteristics and mechanisms among Chinese people who are mainly interdependent selves. We hypothesized that 1) Americans endorsed greater wise-reasoning strategies in the friend-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition, while among Chinese, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies did not differ between the two conditions; 2) People with independent self exhibited greater wise reasoning in the friend-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition, whereas people with interdependent self didn’t have significant differences between the two conditions.
In study 1, we recruited 594 American participants from MTurk and 610 Chinese participants from a Chinese survey platform to participate in “a survey of daily life”. Participants who responded less attentiveness to the study was excluded. The final sample consisted of 282 American participants (125 females, 155 males 2 with unreported gender; M = 36.87 y, SD = 11.04; 218 Whites, 21 African Americans, 27 Asian, 13 Latino, and 3 other) and 295 Chinese participants (151 females, 144 males; M = 23.22 y, SD = 4.34). Participants were randomly assigned to either self-conflict or friend-conflict conditions. They were asked to think about a close relationship that was currently not going very well, and then responded to the wise-reasoning scale and self-construal scale. The results using the alignment and ANOVA both showed that Americans reason more wisely about friend’s interpersonal conflict than about their own, while the Chinese didn’t have significant differences between the two conditions. Moreover, the interaction effect of independent self and conflict type on wise reasoning was significantly positive in Chinese culture. Among participants high in independent self, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies was greater in the other-conflict condition than in the self-conflict condition (β = 0.21, t(287) = 2.48, p = 0.014), whereas among participants low in independent self, endorsement of wise-reasoning strategies did not differ between the two conditions (β = -0.07, t(287) = -0.81, p = 0.419). In study 2 (n = 710) and 3 (n = 537), we created a 2 (priming independent vs. interdependent self-construal) × 2 (self-conflict vs. friend-conflict) between-subjects design online and in study 4 (n = 200), we created same design in lab. The results all showed that independent participants reason more wisely about friend’s conflict than about their own, while the differences between the conditions were not significant among interdependent participants.
The results from the two studies indicate that Solomon’s paradox is not universal and may only exist in individuals with high independent self. This study also suggests that we should not only focus on the WEIRD samples but also pay attention to the WEIRD researchers who use these samples to make inferences about humans in general.

Key words: wisdom, self, wise reasoning, cultural difference, alignment