“我们大, 你们小”：内外群体与大小空间的联结

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1638

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

内外群体划分是重要的社会分类维度, 其是否有隐喻基础尚未知。本研究通过系列实验探讨内外群体是否与大小空间隐喻间存在联结。实验1发现被试更会将内群体目标人物放置到大的方框内, 将外群体目标人物放置到小的方框内。实验2a和2b发现内群体启动会让被试对目标对象面积的判断更大。实验3基于反应时指标, 分别以学校(实验3a)、地域(实验3b)以及最简群体(实验3c)来操作内外群体, 发现群体身份和大小隐喻一致时(如内群体和大的空间关联), 被试进行内外群体分类的反应会显著快于群体身份和大小隐喻不一致时(如内群体和小的空间关联)的反应。这些结果表明, 内外群体与空间大小隐喻之间存在稳定联结, 此联结源于个体对内群体身份的积极认同。研究结论揭示了内外群体社会分类与感知觉层面的空间大小隐喻联结的机制, 也为应对内外群体分类引发的负面影响提供了新思路。

关键词: 内群体, 外群体, 空间大小, 社会认同, 具身认知

Abstract:

In everyday life, individuals categorize themselves and others into social groups, forming in-group and out-group identities that can lead to stereotypes, prejudice, and intergroup conflict. Understanding the mechanisms behind this categorization is crucial for mitigating its negative consequences. Recent research in embodied cognition reveals a bidirectional relationship between social categorization and embodied metaphors, showing that metaphorical manipulations can inhibit negative stereotypes and prejudice. While in-group/ out-group categorization is a key aspect of social categorization, its embodied basis has not yet been examined. This study investigates the association between in-group/out-group categorization and the embodied metaphor of spatial size through a series of three experiments.

Experiment 1 (n = 55) employed a placement task to examine whether in-group/out-group categorization (own school vs. other school) was linked to spatial size. Experiments 2a (n = 36) and 2b (n = 34) assessed size perception when participants were primed with in-group versus out-group identities. Experiments 3a (n = 34), 3b (n = 40), and 3c (n = 39) utilized a reaction-time paradigm to further test this association across different bases of categorization (school membership, regional identity, and minimal group assignment).

Results revealed that participants placed in-group targets in larger squares compared to out-group targets (Experiment 1). Participants primed with in-group identities perceived objects as larger than those primed with out-group identities (Experiment 2). Reaction times were faster when group identity was congruent with the spatial size metaphor, regardless of the basis of categorization (Experiment 3). These findings demonstrate a consistent association between in-group/out-group categorization and the embodied metaphor of spatial size, which is linked to positive in-group identification. This study advances our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying social categorization and provides practical insights for mitigating intergroup bias and conflict.

Key words: in-group, out-group, spatial size, social identity, embodied cognition

中图分类号:

B849:C91

张晓斌, 李欣璐, 马梓耀, 代璐瑶, 施泳霖, 佐斌. (2025). “我们大, 你们小”：内外群体与大小空间的联结. 心理学报, 57(9), 1638-1648.

ZHANG Xiaobin, LI Xinlu, MA Ziyao, DAI Luyao, SHI Yonglin, ZUO Bin. (2025). “We are big, you are small”: The association between in-group/out-group categorization and space size. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(9), 1638-1648.

图/表 5

图1 实验1材料

图2 实验2a (图中显示的外群体信息)材料

图3 实验2b材料

图4 实验3a流程和材料(内外群体与大小隐喻匹配)示意图

图5 图片分类任务材料

参考文献 49

[1]	Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281-1289.
[2]	Bettinsoli, M. L., Suitner, C., Maass, A., Finco, L., Sherman, S. J., & Salvador Casara, B. G. (2022). The spatial ingroup bias: Ingroup teams are positioned where writing starts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(1), 49-64. doi: 10.1177/0146167220984297 pmid: 33514275
[3]	Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.
[4]	Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity:Revisiting groups. In M. Schaller, J. Simpson, & D. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology, New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[5]	Buttelmann, D., & Böhm, R. (2014). The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science, 25(4), 921-927. doi: 10.1177/0956797613516802 pmid: 24474724
[6]	Chanes, L., Wormwood, J. B., Betz, N., & Barrett, L. F. (2018). Facial expression predictions as drivers of social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 380-396. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000108 pmid: 29369657
[7]	Dunham, Y. (2018). Mere membership. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 780-793. doi: S1364-6613(18)30144-X pmid: 30119749
[8]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[9]	Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2011). A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118(2), 247-279. doi: 10.1037/a0022327 pmid: 21355661
[10]	Freeman, J. B., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). More than meets the eye: Split-second social perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(5), 362-374. doi: S1364-6613(16)00050-4 pmid: 27050834
[11]	Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.
[12]	Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575-604.
[13]	Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325-340.
[14]	Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., & Sowa, F. J. (1999). Review of philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 631-634.
[15]	Lamer, S. A., Suitner, C., Maass, A., Caccioppoli, R., & Pradell, H. (2020). The function of vertical and horizontal space to social group identity. Self and Identity, 20(6), 774-810.
[16]	Lamer, S. A., & Weisbuch, M. (2019). Men over women: The social transmission of gender stereotypes through spatial elevation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103828.
[17]	Lamer, S. A., Weisbuch, M., & Sweeny, T. D. (2017). Spatial cues influence the visual perception of gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(9), 1366-1371.
[18]	Liu, K., Xu, H., & Bi, C. (2015). “Bigger is better”: High narcissists' preference to big size font. Journal of Southwest University Natural Science Edition, 37(4), 78-82.
	[刘凯歌, 许欢欢, 毕重增. (2015). 高自恋者对大字体的偏爱. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 37(4), 78-82.]
[19]	Lu, Z., Jia, L., & Zhai, D. (2017). The mapping for vertical spatial metaphor of the moral concepts: Bidirectional and unbalanced. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(2), 186-196 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00186
	[鲁忠义, 贾利宁, 翟冬雪. (2017). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻理解中的映射:双向性及不平衡性. 心理学报, 49(2), 186-196 ]
[20]	Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 981-993. pmid: 2614663
[21]	Meier, B. P., & Dionne, S. (2009). Downright sexy: Verticality, implicit power, and perceived physical attractiveness. Social Cognition, 27(6), 883-892.
[22]	Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Caven, A. J. (2008). Why a big mac is a good mac: Associations between affect and size. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 46-55.
[23]	Misch, A., Paulus, M., & Dunham, Y. (2021). Anticipation of future cooperation eliminates minimal ingroup bias in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(10), 2036-2056.
[24]	Qin, G. (2011). Intergeneration mobility and out-group prejudice and discrimination: Empirical analyses of the data from the 2005 China general social survey. Society, 31(4), 116-136.
	[秦广强. (2011). 代际流动与外群体歧视基于2005年全国综合社会调查数据的实证分析. 社会, 31(4), 116-136.]
[25]	Schubert, T. W., Waldzus, S., & Giessner, S. R. (2009). Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition, 27(1), 1-19.
[26]	Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
[27]	Shulman, J. L., Collins, K. A., & Clément, R. (2011). In consideration of social context: Re-examining the linguistic intergroup bias paradigm. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(4), 310-332.
[28]	Silvera, D. H., Josephs, R. A., & Giesler, R. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(3), 189-202.
[29]	Stagnaro, M. N., Dunham, Y., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Profit versus prejudice: Harnessing self-interest to reduce in-group bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 50-58.
[30]	Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). Super-size me: Self biases increase to larger stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 550-558.
[31]	Suitner, C., Maass, A., & Ronconi, L. (2017). From spatial to social asymmetry: Spontaneous and conditioned associations of gender and space. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(1), 46-64.
[32]	Sumner, W. G. (1907). Folkways, a study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. International Journal of Ethics, 21(3), 327-330.
[33]	Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
[34]	Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey: Nelson-Hall.
[35]	Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276-293). London: Psychology Press.
[36]	Tang, P., Ye, H., & Du, J. (2015). The spatial size metaphor of power concepts: A perspective from embodied cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 514-521. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00514
	[唐佩佩, 叶浩生, 杜建政. (2015). 权力概念与空间大小:具身隐喻的视角. 心理学报, 47(4), 514-521.]
[37]	Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 5-34.
[38]	Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204.
[39]	Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Liu, J. H., & Pauling, J. (2008). Exchanges of group-based favours: Ingroup bias in the prisoner's dilemma game with minimal groups in Japan and New Zealand. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(3), 196-207.
[40]	Yang, H., He, X., Zhao, X., & Zhang, W. (2015). Multiple metaphorical representations of power: Evidence from size and color. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(7), 939-949. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00939
	[杨惠兰, 何先友, 赵雪汝, 张维. (2015). 权力的概念隐喻表征:来自大小与颜色隐喻的证据. 心理学报, 47(7), 939-949.]
[41]	Yang, X., & Dunham, Y. (2019). Minimal but meaningful: Probing the limits of randomly assigned social identities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 185, 19-34. doi: S0022-0965(18)30674-X pmid: 31085424
[42]	Ye, H. S. (2011). Embodied cognition: A consideration from theoretical psychology. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(5), 589-598.
	[叶浩生. (2011). 有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考. 心理学报, 43(5), 589-598.]
[43]	Yi, Z., Yang, W., & Ye, H. (2018). Influence of soft and hard tactical experiences on gender role cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(7), 793-802. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00793
	[易仲怡, 杨文登, 叶浩生. (2018). 具身认知视角下软硬触觉经验对性别角色认知的影响. 心理学报, 50(7), 793-802.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00793
[44]	Yin, R., Su, D., & Ye, H. (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory: Basing on theories of embodied cognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(2), 220-234. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00220
	[殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生. (2013). 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 220-234.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00220
[45]	Zhang, X., Li, Q., Eskine, K. J., & Zuo, B. (2014). Perceptual simulation in gender categorization: Associations between gender, vertical height, and spatial size. PLoS One, 9(2), e89768.
[46]	Zhang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Spatial size can affect social categorization of the rich and the poor. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1914. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01914 pmid: 32849123
[47]	Zhang, X., Zhang, Z., Sun, S., & Zuo, B. (2021). Development of spatial size representation of the social categorization of rich and poor. Cognitive Development, 59, 101086.
[48]	Zhang, Y., Wang, L., & Jiang, Y. (2021). My own face looks larger than yours: A self-induced illusory size perception. Cognition, 212, 104718.
[49]	Zhang, Y., & Zuo, B. (2006). Social identity theory and it’s development. Advances in Psychological Science, 14(3), 475-480.
	[张莹瑞, 佐斌. (2006). 社会认同理论及其发展. 心理科学进展, 14(3), 475-480. ]