群体身份变换性对老年人印象更新的影响：共同内群体认同的中介作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01059

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

群体印象更新对于促进群际和谐具有重要的现实意义。本研究采用最简群体再分类范式, 通过4个实验考察了群体身份变换性对老年人外显与内隐印象更新的影响以及共同内群体认同的中介作用。结果发现, 群体身份变换性不仅改变了对最简外群体的印象评价, 而且也提升了年轻人对自然外群体老年人的外显印象评价, 但内隐印象评价的改变不明显; 共同内群体认同在群体身份变换性影响老年人的外显印象更新中起完全中介作用。这些发现不仅从群体身份变换性的视角进一步丰富和拓展了印象更新领域, 而且为群际互动中的偏见消除提供了最简群体再分类新方法。

关键词: 最简群体再分类范式, 老年人群体, 印象更新, 群体身份变换性, 共同内群体认同

Abstract:

In the field of impression updating, most researchers focus on the impression updating of individual targets, while few researches focus on the impression updating of groups. However, the intervention of prejudice and conflict between groups has always been a hot issue to be solved in the field of social psychology. Since group identity is the basis for impression evaluation of groups, based on the perspective of Common Ingroup Identity Model and social categorization, changing group identity to improve common ingroup identity provides a feasible “change makes sense” intervention path for the impression update of the target group. Considering that the large elderly population has become an important part of the world population, it is of great practical significance to evaluate the elderly population positively. Based on this, the present study manipulated group identity shifting at both explicit and implicit levels through “minimal group recategorization paradigm”. The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of identity shifting on the impression updating of the elderly group and the role of common ingroup identity in it, so as to explore a method with low restriction, simple operation and obvious effect to improve out-group impression evaluation.
In preliminary experiment, 119 college students participated in the psychology class as subjects, to examine the effect of group identity shifting manipulated by the minimal group recategorization paradigm on the updating of minimal in-group/out-group impressions. In Experiment 1A, 98 college students were recruited as subjects. The aim of Experiment 1A was to use the “minimal group recategorization paradigm” to manipulate the shifting of group identity, examine the change of young individuals’ perception of warmth and competence towards the elderly group, and examine the effect of group identity shifting on the impression updating of the elderly at the explicit level. In Experiment 1B, we recruited 35 college students as subjects to explore whether the impression evaluation of the elderly can be effectively changed at the implicit level by using Go/ No-Go association task. In Experiment 2, the effect of identity shifting was tested on both explicit and implicit levels. At the implicit level, a Single Category Implicit Association Test with higher application rate and wider application scope was used, and an integrated perspective of warmth, competence and stereotype trait words was used to measure the impression evaluation. At the same time, the influence of identity shifting on common ingroup identity was also measured to explore the role of common ingroup identity in the impression updating of the elderly.
The results of pre-experiment found that shifting group identity could effectively update individual’s impression of out-group. Specifically, the evaluation of out-group in the changed group was significantly improved compared with that in the unchanged group. The results of experiment 1A showed that at the explicit level, shifting group identity could affect the impression updating of the elderly, and the second evaluation of the elderly has been significantly improved, especially in the competence dimension. The results of Experiment 1B showed that at the implicit level, manipulation of group identity shifting could not effectively improve the impression evaluation of the elderly. In experiment 2, it was found that at the explicit level, common ingroup identity played a completely mediating role in the effect of identity shifting on impression improvement. At the implicit level, consistent with experiment 1B, identity shifting did not change subjects' implicit impression evaluation of the elderly.
In conclusion, minimal group recategorization paradigm can shift individual group identity through two classifications and improve impression evaluation of out-group, which is an effective tool to change group identity and alleviate intergroup bias. At the explicit level, common ingroup identity played a mediating role, but at the implicit level, no intervention effect was found. These findings have created a new recategorization method for enhancing common ingroup identity, and opened up a simple and effective method for intergroup prejudice intervention. Moreover, the application of minimal group paradigm is no longer the static application, but more dynamic, ecological significance and realistic value.

Key words: minimal group recategorization paradigm, the elderly, impression updating, group identity shifting, common ingroup identity

中图分类号:

B849: C91

温芳芳, 柯文琳, 何赛飞, 佐斌, 李兰心, 马书瀚, 王晶. (2022). 群体身份变换性对老年人印象更新的影响：共同内群体认同的中介作用. 心理学报, 54(9), 1059-1075.

WEN Fangfang, KE Wenlin, HE Saifei, ZUO Bin, LI Lanxin, MA Shuhan, WANG Jing. (2022). The effect of group identity shifting on impression updating in older adults: The mediating role of common ingroup identity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(9), 1059-1075.

图/表 11

图1 预实验中对外群体印象评价描述性统计图注: *p < 0.05;**p < 0.01;***p < 0.001。下同。

图2 预实验中对内群体印象评价描述性统计图

图3 实验1A群体身份变换性对老年人外显印象更新的影响的描述性统计

表1 实验1B中Go/No-go联想任务各条件下的辨别力指数均值(标准差)

测量阶段	改变组		不变组
测量阶段	积极	消极	积极	消极
第一次测量	3.12 (0.75)	3.89 (0.73)	3.52 (1.14)	3.90 (0.62)
第二次测量	3.34 (0.84)	3.94 (0.76)	3.38 (0.86)	4.09 (0.52)

图4 实验2基于外显与内隐层面的共同内群体认同机制检验流程图

图5 实验2外显评价描述性统计图

图6 实验2内隐测量描述性统计图

表2 共同内群体认同在群体身份变换性与印象更新之间的中介效应检验

回归方程		整体拟合指数			回归系数显著性
结果变量	预测变量	R	R²	F(df₁/df₂)	β	t
印象提升	身份变换性	0.30	0.09	5.49^*(1/54)	0.25	2.34^*
共同内群体认同	身份变换性	0.34	0.12	7.19^**(1/54)	0.84	2.68^**
印象提升	身份变换性	0.39	0.15	4.70^*(2/53)	0.18	1.60
印象提升	共同内群体认同				0.09	1.91

表3 间接效应检验结果

效应	效应值	SE	LLCI	ULCI
直接效应	0.18	0.11	-0.05	0.40
间接效应	0.073	0.03	0.01	0.15
总效应	0.25	0.11	0.04	0.47

图7 实验2中共同内群体认同的中介效应路径图

图8 共同内群体认同不同再分类方式示意图

参考文献 66

[1]	Abbink, K., & Harris, D. (2019). In-group favouritism and out- group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PLoS ONE, 14(9), Article e0221616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221616 URL
[2]	Brannon, S. M., & Gawronski, B. (2017). A second chance for first impressions? exploring the context-(in)dependent updating of implicit evaluations. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 8(3), 275-283.
[3]	Brochu, P. M., Banfield, J. C., & Dovidio, J. F. (2020). Does a common ingroup identity reduce weight bias? only when weight discrimination is salient. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3020. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03020. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03020 URL
[4]	Burns, M. D., Monteith, M. J. & Parker, L. R. (2017). Training away bias: The differential effects of counterstereotype training and self-regulation on stereotype activation and application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 97-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.003 URL
[5]	Cadieux, J., Chasteen, A. L., Packer, D. J. (2019). Intergenerational contact predicts attitudes toward older adults through inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 74(4), 575-584. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx176 URL
[6]	Cao, J., & Banaji, M. R. (2016). The base rate principle and the fairness principle in social judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7475-7480. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1524268113. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1524268113 URL
[7]	Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 219-231. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1503 URL
[8]	Cone, J. & Ferguson, M. J. (2015). He did what? the role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 108(1), 37-57.
[9]	Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization: Processes, models and applications. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
[10]	Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons (pp.3-26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[11]	Cuddy, A. J. C., Norton, M. I., Fiske, S. T. (2016). Corrigendum to “This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype”. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 614-614. doi: 10.1111/josi.12185 URL
[12]	Dang, B. B., Gao, C. H., Yang, Y., & Wan, M. G. (2014). Intergroup threat: The contributing factors and reduction strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 711-720. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00711 URL
	[党宝宝, 高承海, 杨阳, 万明钢. (2014). 群际威胁: 影响因素与减少策略. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 711-720.]
[13]	Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2010). Decategorization and the reduction of bias in the crossed categorization paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 193-216. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.42 URL
[14]	Fang, J., Wen, Z. L., & Zhang, M. Q. (2017). Mediation analysis of categorical variables. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(2), 471-477.
	[方杰, 温忠麟, 张敏强. (2017). 类别变量的中介效应分析. 心理科学, 40(2), 471-477.]
[15]	Ferguson, M. J., Mann, T. C., Cone, J., & Shen, X. (2019). When and how implicit first impressions can be updated. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 331-336. doi: 10.1177/0963721419835206
[16]	Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley.
[17]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878- 902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 URL
[18]	Forscher, P. S., Mitamura, C., Dix, E. L., Cox, W. T. L., & Devine, P. G. (2017). Breaking the prejudice habit: Mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 133-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.009. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.009 pmid: 29225371
[19]	Fourakis, E., & Cone, J. (2019). Matters order: The role of information order on implicit impression formation. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 11(1), 56-63. doi: 10.1177/1948550619843930. doi: 10.1177/1948550619843930
[20]	Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
[21]	Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2020). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York: Routledge.
[22]	Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 3-24.
[23]	Greenwald, A., Nosek, B., & Banaji, M. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216.
[24]	Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239 URL
[25]	Gregg, A. P., Seibt, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the malleability of implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.1 URL
[26]	Guan, J., & Rong, Y. (2020). The common in-group identity: Constructing a more inclusive superordinate identity. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 57(1), 39-49.
	[管健, 荣杨. (2020). 共同内群体认同:建构包摄水平更高的上位认同. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 57(1), 39-49.]
[27]	Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2013). Translating recategorization strategies into an antibias educational intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00976.x URL
[28]	Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Caleo, S. (2019). Updating impressions: The differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 105-121. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.010 URL
[29]	Hummert, M. L. (2011). Age stereotypes and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis(Eds. ), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 249-262). Netherlands: Elsevier Press.
[30]	Kunst, J. R., Kimel, S. Y., Shani, M., Alayan, R., & Thomsen, L. (2019). Can Abraham bring peace? The relationship between acknowledging shared religious roots and intergroup conflict. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(4), 417-432. doi: 10.1037/rel0000192 URL
[31]	Kunst, J. R., Thomsen, L., Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2015). “We are in this together”: Common group identity predicts majority members’ active acculturation efforts to integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1438-1453. doi: 10.1177/0146167215599349 URL
[32]	Liang, M. F., Xiao, Z. L., Bao, Y., & Zhao, Y. F. (2020). The promotion effect and mechanism of common ingroup identity on psychological compatibility. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(5), 1147-1153.
	[梁芳美, 肖子伦, 包燕, 赵玉芳. (2020). 共同内群体认同对心理融合的促进效应及其机制. 心理科学, 43(5), 1147- 1153.]
[33]	Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2017). Reversing implicit first impressions through reinterpretation after a two-day delay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 122-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.004 URL
[34]	Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623 URL
[35]	McConnell, A. R., Rydell, R. J., Strain, L. M., & Mackie, D. M. (2008). Forming implicit and explicit attitudes toward individuals: Social group association cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 792-807. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.792 pmid: 18444739
[36]	Moss, S. M. (2016). “Country first, politics later” reasons for dual recategorization in Zanzibari narratives. Peace & Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 318-328.
[37]	Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625-664. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886 URL
[38]	Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 288-332. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265 URL
[39]	Otten, S. (2016). The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 85-89. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.010 URL
[40]	Palese, T., & Schmid Mast, M. (2019). Interpersonal accuracy and interaction outcomes:Why and how reading others correctly has adaptive advantages in social interactions. In R. J. Sternberg & A. Kostic ´ (Eds.), Social intelligence: The adaptive advantages of nonverbal communication (pp.305-331). Palgrave-Macmillan.
[41]	Pan, W. J., Wen, F. F., & Zuo, B. (2018). Aging stereotype threat and it’s manipulations in psychological research. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(9), 1670-1679. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01670 URL
	[潘文静, 温芳芳, 佐斌. (2018). 老年刻板印象威胁及其研究操纵. 心理科学进展, 26(9), 1670-1679.]
[42]	Park, B., & Young, L. (2020). An association between biased impression updating and relationship facilitation: A behavioral and FMRI investigation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103916. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103916. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103916 URL
[43]	Robertson, D. A., King-Kallimanis, B. L. & Kenny, R. A. (2016). Negative perceptions of aging predict longitudinal decline in cognitive function. Psychology and Aging, 31(1), 71-81. doi: 10.1037/pag0000061 pmid: 26691302
[44]	Roth, J., Steffens, M. C., & Vignoles, V. L. (2018). Group membership, group change, and intergroup attitudes: A recategorization model based on cognitive consistency principles. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 479. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00479. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00479 URL
[45]	Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 995-1008. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.995 URL
[46]	Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Mackie, D. M., & Strain, L. M. (2006). Of two minds: Forming and changing valence- inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 17(11), 954-958. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01811.x URL
[47]	Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Strain, L. M., Claypool, H. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). Implicit and explicit attitudes respond differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 867-878. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.393 URL
[48]	Sassenberg, K., & Matschke, C. (2010). The impact of exchange programs on the integration of the hostgroup into the self-concept. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 148-159.
[49]	Shen, X., Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2020). Beware a dishonest face? Updating face-based implicit impressions using diagnostic behavioral information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103888. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103888. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103888 URL
[50]	Simon, J. C., & Gutsell, J. N. (2019). Effects of minimal grouping on implicit prejudice, infrahumanization, and neural processing despite orthogonal social categorizations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(3), 323-343.
[51]	Sun, J. C., Xun, F. J., Liu, P., & Zhang, W. H. (2019). The implicit advantage of a high kindness trait in the action control of emotion regulation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(7), 781-791. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00781 URL
	[孙俊才, 寻凤娇, 刘萍, 张文海. (2019). 高善良特质在情绪调节行动控制中的内隐优势. 心理学报, 51(7), 781- 791.]
[52]	Sun, S. (2016). The influence of perspective taking on stereotyping: The perspective of self-stereotype dual model (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Central China Normal University, Wuhan.
	[孙山. (2016). 观点采择对刻板化的影响:自我—刻板印象双重路径的视角 (博士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.]
[53]	Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. Differentiation Between Social Group, 24(1), 285-295.
[54]	Ufkes, E. G., Dovidio, J. F., & Tel, G. (2015). Identity and collective action among European Kurds. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 176-181. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12084 pmid: 25257157
[55]	Wang, J. X., Zhou, Y. N., & Pei, F. H. (2021). The pathways to forging a sense of community for the Chinese nation from the perspective of development of a social psychological service system. Journal of Ethnology, 12(5), 17-23+108.
	[王俊秀, 周迎楠, 裴福华. (2021). 社会心理服务体系建设视角下铸牢中华民族共同体意识的路径——基于共同内群体认同理论. 民族学刊, 12(5), 17-23+108.]
[56]	Wang, Y. H., Yuan, Q. H., & Xu, Q. M. (2009). A preliminary study on Self-Constructionals Scales (SCS) of Chinese-version. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(6), 602-604.
	[王裕豪, 袁庆华, 徐琴美. (2009). 自我建构量表(SCS)中文版的初步试用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 16(6), 602-604.]
[57]	Wen, F. F. & Zuo, B. (2007). The measurement of implicit social cognition to assess the single attitude object. Advances in Psycholgogical Science, 15(5), 828-833.
	[温芳芳, 佐斌. (2007). 评价单一态度对象的内隐社会认知测验方法. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 828-833.]
[58]	Wen, F. F., & Zuo, B. (2018). The minimal group paradigm: Operation, psychological mechanism and new application. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(3), 713-719.
	[温芳芳, 佐斌. (2018). 最简群体范式的操作、心理机制及新应用. 心理科学, 41(3), 713-719.]
[59]	Wen, F. F., & Zuo, B. (2019). Concepts, cues and influential mechanisms of social categorization. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(2), 141-147.
	[温芳芳, 佐斌. (2019). 社会分类的概念、线索及影响机制. 心理科学, 42(2), 141-147.]
[60]	Wen, F. F., & Zuo, B. (2022). The psychological mechanism of implicit impression updating. Journal of Psychological Science, in press.
	[温芳芳, 佐斌. (2022). 内隐印象更新的心理机制. 心理科学, 印刷中.]
[61]	Wyer, N. A. (2010). You never get a second chance to make a first (implicit) impression: The role of elaboration in the formation and revision of implicit impressions. Social Cognition, 28(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1521/soco.2010.28.1.1 URL
[62]	Yu, L. X., Ling, X., & Jiang, G. R. (2013). Impulsivity in Non-Suicidal Self-Injurious Adolescents in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(3), 320-335. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00320 URL
	[于丽霞, 凌霄, 江光荣. (2013). 自伤青少年的冲动性. 心理学报, 45(3), 320-335.]
[63]	Zhao, Y. F., & Liang, F. M. (2019). Common in-group identity promoting ethnic psychological compatibility: Bidirectional measurement and SC-IAT test. Journal of Normal west University (Social Science), 56(3), 99-107.
	[赵玉芳, 梁芳美. (2019). 共同内群体认同促进民族心理融合:双向度测量与SC-IAT检验. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 56(3), 99-107.]
[64]	Zhou, T. S., Hu, Q., Cui, L. J. (2018). Common ingroup identity and intergroup helping: The mediating effect of intergroup threat. Psychological Research, 11(4), 333-342.
	[周天爽, 胡琴, 崔丽娟. (2018). 共同内群体认同与群际帮助意愿: 群际威胁的中介作用. 心理研究, 11(4), 333-342.]
[65]	Zuo, B., Wen, F. F., Wu, Yang., & Dai, T. T. (2018). Situational evolution of the relationship between warmth and competence in intergroup evaluation: Impact of evaluating intention and behavioral outcomes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(10), 1180-1196. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01180 URL
	[佐斌, 温芳芳, 吴漾, 代涛涛. (2018). 群际评价中热情与能力关系的情境演变:评价意图与结果的作用. 心理学报, 50(10), 1180-1196.]
[66]	Zuo, B., Wen, F. F., & Zhu, X. F. (2007). College students’ age stereotypes toward young and elderly people. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 13(3), 231-236.
	[佐斌, 温芳芳, 朱晓芳. (2007). 大学生对年轻人和老年人的年龄刻板印象. 应用心理学, 13(3), 231-236.]