命运天定还是逆天改命：探索劣势者成见的“傀儡效应”与“黑马效应”

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01029

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

职场中总有一些员工被视为前景黯淡, 赋予劣势者成见。现有研究关注到它作为社会情境线索对员工行为的影响, 但忽视了它与个体特质的交互作用, 因而形成截然不同的结论。为弥合上述矛盾, 文章基于特质激活理论, 沿着“特质×情境→行为/意图→绩效”主线, 探讨了不同心态特质被劣势者成见激活时对任务绩效的影响, 尝试回答“不被看好的员工因何沦为被命运摆布的傀儡又何时逆袭成为职场黑马”。两项问卷研究和一项现场研究的数据分析揭示：(1)劣势者成见与固定心态的交互作用正向影响反馈回避行为进而降低任务绩效; (2)劣势者成见与成长心态的交互作用正向影响证明他人错误进而增强任务绩效; (3)聚焦任务抑制劣势者成见对固定心态员工行为的激活作用, 聚焦未来增强劣势者成见对成长心态员工行为的激活作用。研究揭示了职场中“傀儡效应”与“黑马效应”的成因及其干预条件, 表明心态特质在加工“不被看好”这类负面信息上存在不同的影响路径, 从而为整合“劣势者员工”和“领头羊员工”研究奠定基础, 也为当前“躺平”、“佛系”等丧文化的产生和流行提供了理论解释和转化思路。

关键词: 心态特质, 劣势者成见, 反馈回避行为, 证明他人错误, 聚焦任务, 聚焦未来

Abstract:

In organisations, some employees are heralded as rising stars, whilst others are considered underdogs with no prospects. Scholars define individuals’ perceptions that others view them as unlikely to succeed as underdog expectation. The traditional view indicates that when individuals experience underdog expectations from others, they will reduce their subsequent performance through a sense of self-efficacy. This phenomenon, in which one’s performance is manipulated by someone else’s negative assessment, is also known as the Golem effect. Indeed, some studies have suggested that underdog expectations can enhance their desire to prove others wrong to improve performance. However, such studies have only focused on the influence of underdog expectations on employee behavior as social-situation cues but have disregarded its interaction with individuals’ traits. By integrating the preceding arguments, we proposed a comprehensive model based on trait activation theory, which examines the Golem and underdog effects. Specifically, under the moderating effect of underdog expectations, employees with fixed mindsets have a negative impact on subsequent task performance through feedback- avoiding behavior. Meanwhile, employees with growth mindsets have a positive impact on subsequent task performance by proving others wrong. The task context (task focus vs. future focus) plays a role in inhibiting and amplifying the two interactions.
This study aimed to explore the reasons why employees who are trapped in underdog expectations become a Golem manipulated by fate and how to counter strike and become an underdog in the workplace. This study constructed a three-term interaction model of nested moderated mediation model. Three studies were designed to explore the internal and intervention mechanisms of the Golem and underdog effects activated by underdog expectations. In the first study, the existence of three interactions was initially examined through a multi-source, multi-point questionnaire of 341 employees. To test the stability of the three interactions and the extensibility of the research conclusions in different groups, a second multi-source and multi-time questionnaire survey involving 650 employees and a field study based on a quasi-experiment were designed for retesting. Regression analysis, bootstrap method and Johnson−Neyman (J−N) technology were used to analyse the questionnaire data to examine the moderated mediation effects of the three-term interaction. T-tests were used to analyse data from the field study.
The analyses of the study showed the following results. (1) The interaction between underdog expectations and fixed mindsets positively affects subsequent task performance through feedback-avoiding behavior. (2) The interaction between underdog expectations and growth mindsets positively affects subsequent task performance through the desire to prove others wrong. (3) Lastly, task focus reduces the positive moderating effect of underdog expectations on fixed mindsets, and future focus strengthens the positive moderating effect of underdog expectations on growth mindsets.
Findings of our research have several theoretical and practical implications. This study revealed the causes of the Golem and underdog effects, thereby enriching and expanding the research on implicit theory. It showed that fixed and growth mindsets have different paths in processing negative information, which is helpful in integrating the research on underdog and topdog employees. It also provided a theoretical explanation and transformation idea for the emergence and popularity of the depressed culture represented by the lie down and Buddha-like mindsets.

Key words: mental traits, underdog expectations, feedback-avoiding behavior, desire to prove others wrong, task focus, future focus

中图分类号:

B849: C93

马君, 朱梦霆. (2023). 命运天定还是逆天改命：探索劣势者成见的“傀儡效应”与“黑马效应”. 心理学报, 55(6), 1029-1048.

MA Jun, ZHU Mengting. (2023). Accept or change your fate: Exploring the Golem effect and underdog effect of underdog expectations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 1029-1048.

图/表 32

参考文献 50

[1]	Aguinis H., Gottfredson R. K., & Joo H. (2012). Using performance management to win the talent war. Business Horizons, 55(6), 609-616. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2012.05.007 URL
[2]	Aronson J., Fried C. B., & Good C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 URL
[3]	Asgari E., Hunt R. A., Lerner D. A., Townsend D. M., Hayward M. L., & Kiefer K. (2021). Red giants or black holes? The antecedent conditions and multilevel impacts of star performers. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 223-265. doi: 10.5465/annals.2019.0061 URL
[4]	Becker T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289. doi: 10.1177/1094428105278021 URL
[5]	Binyamin G. (2020). Do leader expectations shape employee service performance? Enhancing self-expectations and internalization in employee role identity. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(4), 536-554.
[6]	Burkley E., Curtis J., & Hatvany T. (2017). The social contagion of incremental and entity trait beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 108(4), 45-49. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.063 URL
[7]	Burnette J. L., Pollack J. M., & Hoyt C. L. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of leadership ability and self‐efficacy: Predicting responses to stereotype threat. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 46-56. doi: 10.1002/jls.v3:4 URL
[8]	Chang E., Chin H., & Ye J. (2014). Organizational work- family culture and working mothers’ affective commitment: How career expectations matter. Human Resource Management, 53(5), 683-700. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2014.53.issue-5 URL
[9]	Christian M. S., Garza A. S., & Slaughter J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. doi: 10.1111/peps.2011.64.issue-1 URL
[10]	Datu J. A. D., & Buenconsejo J. U. (2021). Academic engagement and achievement predict career adaptability. Career Development Quarterly, 69(1), 34-48. doi: 10.1002/cdq.v69.1 URL
[11]	Davis J. L., Burnette J. L., Allison S. T., & Stone H. (2011). Against the odds: Academic underdogs benefit from incremental theories. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 331-346. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9147-6 URL
[12]	Dawson J. F., & Richter A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926. pmid: 16834514
[13]	Dweck C. S. (Ed). (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
[14]	Ehrlinger J., Mitchum A. L., & Dweck C. S. (2016). Understanding overconfidence: Theories of intelligence, preferential attention, and distorted self-assessment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63(1), 94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.001 URL
[15]	Elliot A. J., & McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 pmid: 11300582
[16]	Gray S. M., Bunderson J. S., van der Vegt G. S., Rink F., & Gedik Y. (2022). Leveraging knowledge diversity in hierarchically differentiated teams: The critical role of hierarchy stability. Academy of Management Journal, in press.
[17]	Hong Y.-Y., Chiu C.-Y., Dweck C. S., Lin D. M.-S., & Wan W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588 URL
[18]	Hoyt C. L., Burnette J. L., & Innella A. N. (2012). I can do that: The impact of implicit theories on leadership role model effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 257-268. doi: 10.1177/0146167211427922 pmid: 22143305
[19]	Judge T. A., & Zapata C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837 URL
[20]	Jundt D. K., Shoss M. K., & Huang J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), 53-71.
[21]	Kappes A., Oettingen G., & Pak H. (2012). Mental contrasting and the self-regulation of responding to negative feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 845-857. doi: 10.1177/0146167212446833 pmid: 22645162
[22]	Kiili K., de Freitas S., Arnab S., & Lainema T. (2012). The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science, 15(1), 78-91. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.060 URL
[23]	Kim K., del Carmen Triana M., Chung K., & Oh N. (2016). When do employees cyberloaf? An interactionist perspective examining personality, justice, and empowerment. Human Resource Management, 55(6), 1041-1058. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2016.55.issue-6 URL
[24]	King R. B., & dela Rosa E. D. (2019). Are your emotions under your control or not? Implicit theories of emotion predict well-being via cognitive reappraisal. Personality and Individual Differences, 138(2), 177-182. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.040 URL
[25]	Liu H., Chiang J. T.-J., Fehr R., Xu M., & Wang S. (2017). How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1590-1599. doi: 10.1037/apl0000237 pmid: 28617000
[26]	Liu Y. X., Chen C., Zhu N., Zhang J. W., & Wang S. (2020). How does “one takes on the attributes of one's associates”? The past, present, and future of trait activation theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(1), 161-177. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00161 URL
	[刘玉新, 陈晨, 朱楠, 张建卫, 王帅. (2020). 何以近朱者赤、近墨者黑?特质激活理论的缘起、现状和未来. 心理科学进展, 28(1), 161-177.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00161
[27]	Loi T. I., Feng Z., Kuhn K. M., & Tripp T. M. (2021). When and how underdog expectations promote cheating behavior: The roles of need fulfillment and general self-efficacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(2), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04891-4
[28]	Lu H. L., Yang Y., Wang Y. L., Zhang X., & Tan L. (2021). Does distrust motivate or discourage employees? The double- edged sword of feeling ability-distrusted by supervisors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1376-1392. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376 URL
	[卢海陵, 杨洋, 王永丽, 张昕, 谭玲. (2021). “激将法”会激发还是打击员工? 感知能力不被领导信任的“双刃剑”效应. 心理学报, 53(12), 1376-1392.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376
[29]	Ma J., Fan Z. L., & Yang Q. (2021). Performance adaptation mechanism under the performance dynamism. System Engineering Theory and Practice, 41(7), 1828-1839. doi: 10.12011/SETP2019-2004
	[马君, 樊子立, 杨青. (2021). 绩效标准变动下的自我调节机制. 系统工程理论与实践, 41(7), 1828-1839.]
[30]	Ma J., Zhang H. M., & Yang T. (2015). A cross-level analysis of achievement goal orientation and performance control on team member’s creativity, Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(1), 79-92. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00079 URL
	[马君, 张昊民, 杨涛. (2015). 成就目标导向、团队绩效控制对员工创造力的跨层次影响. 心理学报, 47(1), 79-92.]
[31]	Makel M. C., Snyder K. E., Thomas C., Malone P. S., & Putallaz M. (2015). Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 203-212. doi: 10.1177/0016986215599057 URL
[32]	Malmberg L.-E., Pakarinen E., Vasalampi K., & Nurmi J.-E. (2015). Students' school performance, task-focus, and situation-specific motivation. Learning and Instruction, 39(1), 158-167. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.005 URL
[33]	Meyer R. D., Dalal R. S., José I. J., Hermida R., Chen T. R., Vega R. P.,... & Khare V. P. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1010-1041. doi: 10.1177/0149206311425613 URL
[34]	Moss S. E., Song M., Hannah S. T., Wang Z., & Sumanth J. J. (2020). The duty to improve oneself: How duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ feedback-seeking and feedback-avoiding behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(4), 615-631. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4095-8
[35]	Moss S. E., Valenzi E. R., & Taggart W. (2003). Are you hiding from your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instrument to assess the feedback management behaviors of good and bad performers. Journal of Management, 29(4), 487-510. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00022-9 URL
[36]	Murphy M. C., & Dweck C. S. (2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.005 URL
[37]	Nie Q., Zhang J., Lu Y., & Bi Y. Z. (2022). The paradoxical effects of leaders’ high performance expectations: An approach-avoidance framework perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 36(1), 53-63.
	[聂琦, 张捷, 陆渊, 毕砚昭. (2022). 领导高绩效期望的双面性:趋近-回避理论视角. 管理工程学报, 36(1), 53-63.]
[38]	Nurmohamed S. (2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1106-1133. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0181 URL
[39]	Pettit N. C., Sivanathan N., Gladstone E., & Marr J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579-1584. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473120 pmid: 23798464
[40]	Porath C. L., & Bateman T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185-192. pmid: 16435948
[41]	Schmader T., Johns M., & Forbes C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336 pmid: 18426293
[42]	Sevincer A. T., Kluge L., & Oettingen G. (2014). Implicit theories and motivational focus: Desired future versus present reality. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 36-46. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9359-0 URL
[43]	Shapiro J. R., & Neuberg S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107-130. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294790 pmid: 18453458
[44]	Shipp A. J., Edwards J. R., & Lambert L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001 URL
[45]	Swann Jr W. B., Johnson R. E., & Bosson J. K. (2009). Identity negotiation at work. Research In Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 81-109. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005 URL
[46]	Szpunar K. K., & McDermott K. B. (2008). Episodic future thought and its relation to remembering: Evidence from ratings of subjective experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 330-334. pmid: 17540581
[47]	Tett R. P., & Burnett D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 88(3), 500-517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 pmid: 12814298
[48]	Williams C. A., & Lewis L. (2021). Mindsets in health professions education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 100(3), 104863.
[49]	Williams L. J., & Anderson S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305 URL
[50]	Zhang J. P., Qin C. Y., & Liu S. S. (2020). Does seek feedback improve performance? A meta-analytic review about feedback-seeking behavior and individual performance. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(4), 549-565. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00549
	[张建平, 秦传燕, 刘善仕. (2020). 寻求反馈能改善绩效吗?——反馈寻求行为与个体绩效关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 28(4), 549-565.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00549

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. 性别	0.60	0.49	-
2. 学历	3.00	0.66	0.01	−
3. 年龄	1.97	0.70	−0.15^**	−0.13^*	−
4. 工龄	3.25	1.21	−0.17^**	−0.14^**	0.72^***	−
5. 固定心态	2.73	0.92	−0.02	−0.04	0.03	−0.13^*	−
6. 成长心态	2.83	0.75	−0.05	−0.04	0.07	0.23^***	−0.48^***	−
7. 聚焦任务	3.78	0.97	0.04	0.08	0.15^**	0.26^***	−0.38^***	0.52^***	−
8. 聚焦未来	3.88	0.92	−0.13^*	−0.10	0.25^***	0.32^***	−0.31^***	0.42^***	0.39^***	−
9. 劣势者成见	2.71	0.68	−0.10^*	−0.04	0.10	−0.09	0.50^***	−0.50^***	−0.30^***	−0.13^**	−
10. 反馈回避行为	2.97	0.86	0.04	0.11^*	−0.09	−0.21^***	0.49^***	−0.43^***	−0.38^***	−0.51^***	0.39^***	−
11. 证明他人错误	3.96	0.86	0.03	−0.03	−0.10	−0.01	−0.32^***	0.38^***	0.32^***	0.25^***	−0.26^***	−0.31^***	−
12. 任务绩效	3.16	0.65	0.01	−0.01	0.06	0.20^***	−0.43^***	0.53^***	0.46^***	0.45^***	−0.51^***	−0.51^***	0.53^***

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. 性别	0.60	0.49	-
2. 学历	3.00	0.66	0.01	−
3. 年龄	1.97	0.70	−0.15^**	−0.13^*	−
4. 工龄	3.25	1.21	−0.17^**	−0.14^**	0.72^***	−
5. 固定心态	2.73	0.92	−0.02	−0.04	0.03	−0.13^*	−
6. 成长心态	2.83	0.75	−0.05	−0.04	0.07	0.23^***	−0.48^***	−
7. 聚焦任务	3.78	0.97	0.04	0.08	0.15^**	0.26^***	−0.38^***	0.52^***	−
8. 聚焦未来	3.88	0.92	−0.13^*	−0.10	0.25^***	0.32^***	−0.31^***	0.42^***	0.39^***	−
9. 劣势者成见	2.71	0.68	−0.10^*	−0.04	0.10	−0.09	0.50^***	−0.50^***	−0.30^***	−0.13^**	−
10. 反馈回避行为	2.97	0.86	0.04	0.11^*	−0.09	−0.21^***	0.49^***	−0.43^***	−0.38^***	−0.51^***	0.39^***	−
11. 证明他人错误	3.96	0.86	0.03	−0.03	−0.10	−0.01	−0.32^***	0.38^***	0.32^***	0.25^***	−0.26^***	−0.31^***	−
12. 任务绩效	3.16	0.65	0.01	−0.01	0.06	0.20^***	−0.43^***	0.53^***	0.46^***	0.45^***	−0.51^***	−0.51^***	0.53^***

模型	χ2	df	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
单因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW+TP)	5264.74	594	8.86	0.41	0.44	0.14	0.15
双因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW、TP)	5039.63	593	8.50	0.44	0.47	0.14	0.15
三因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB、PW、TP)	3973.61	591	6.72	0.57	0.60	0.12	0.13
四因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM、FB、PW、TP)	3228.87	588	5.49	0.66	0.69	0.13	0.12
五因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2810.03	584	4.81	0.71	0.74	0.12	0.11
六因子模型(FF+TF+UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2470.81	579	4.27	0.76	0.77	0.12	0.10
七因子模型(FF+TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1907.96	573	3.33	0.83	0.84	0.09	0.08
八因子模型(FF、TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1054.88	566	1.86	0.94	0.94	0.05	0.05
九因子模型(八因子+共同方法偏差)	847.94	530	1.60	0.96	0.96	0.04	0.04

模型	χ2	df	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
单因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW+TP)	5264.74	594	8.86	0.41	0.44	0.14	0.15
双因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW、TP)	5039.63	593	8.50	0.44	0.47	0.14	0.15
三因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB、PW、TP)	3973.61	591	6.72	0.57	0.60	0.12	0.13
四因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM+GM、FB、PW、TP)	3228.87	588	5.49	0.66	0.69	0.13	0.12
五因子模型(FF+TF+UE+FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2810.03	584	4.81	0.71	0.74	0.12	0.11
六因子模型(FF+TF+UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2470.81	579	4.27	0.76	0.77	0.12	0.10
七因子模型(FF+TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1907.96	573	3.33	0.83	0.84	0.09	0.08
八因子模型(FF、TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1054.88	566	1.86	0.94	0.94	0.05	0.05
九因子模型(八因子+共同方法偏差)	847.94	530	1.60	0.96	0.96	0.04	0.04

变量	反馈回避行为								任务绩效
	模型1		模型2		模型3		模型4		模型5		模型6
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
截距项	2.74^***	0.24	2.93^***	0.04	2.61^***	0.24	2.95^***	0.04	3.76^***	0.22	4.05^***	0.12
性别	0.12	0.08			0.12	0.08			0.04	0.06
学历	0.17^**	0.06			0.19^**	0.06			0.04	0.05
年龄	−0.07	0.08			−0.06	0.08			−0.06	0.06
司龄	−0.09	0.05			−0.06	0.05			0.08^*	0.04
固定心态	0.34^***	0.05	0.36^***	0.05	0.27^***	0.05	0.29^***	0.05	−0.15^***	0.04	−0.17^***	0.04
反馈回避行为									−0.29^***	0.04	−0.30^***	0.04
劣势者成见	0.08	0.08	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.11	0.08
固定心态×劣势者成见	0.21^***	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.21^***	0.06	0.17^**	0.06
聚焦任务					−0.13^**	0.05	−0.16^***	0.05
固定心态×聚焦任务					0.01	0.05	−0.01	0.05
劣势者成见×聚焦任务					0.31^***	0.08	0.32^***	0.08
固定心态×劣势者成见× 聚焦任务					−0.14^**	0.04	−0.12^**	0.04
R²	0.34		0.28		0.40		0.35		0.31		0.30
ΔR²	0.34^***		0.28^***		0.40^***		0.35^***		0.31^***		0.30^***
F	23.93^***		43.99^***		19.51^***		25.62^***		25.47^***		73.27^***