心理学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (1): 55-65.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00055 cstr: 32110.14.2020.00055
收稿日期:
2019-06-19
发布日期:
2019-11-21
出版日期:
2020-01-25
基金资助:
Received:
2019-06-19
Online:
2019-11-21
Published:
2020-01-25
摘要:
目前关于权力动机的研究主要关注权力动机的阴暗面, 但是对权力动机的积极面尚不清楚。本研究从公平与合作行为的角度出发, 分别采用最后通牒博弈和公共物品博弈任务, 探讨不同权力动机水平个体在内隐(眼睛线索)或外显(他人在场)社会存在下的亲社会行为是否不同。结果发现, 在眼睛线索或他人在场条件下, 相对于低权力动机者, 高权力动机者表现出更高的公平与合作水平。然而当没有社会存在线索时, 高低权力动机者的亲社会行为没有显著差异。结果提示高权力动机者出于名誉和地位的策略考虑, 也会表现出积极的亲社会行为。
中图分类号:
王建峰, 戴冰. (2020). “追名弃利”:权力动机与社会存在对亲社会行为的影响. 心理学报, 52(1), 55-65.
WANG Jianfeng, DAI Bing. (2020). The pursuit of fame at the expense of profit: The influence of power motive and social presence on prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(1), 55-65.
条件 | 权力动机 | 分配金额 |
---|---|---|
眼睛线索 | 7.74 (3.27) | 51.77 (9.71) |
花朵线索 | 8.07 (2.65) | 47.34 (8.00) |
表1 眼睛与花朵线索条件下权力动机得分与分配金额的平均数和标准差
条件 | 权力动机 | 分配金额 |
---|---|---|
眼睛线索 | 7.74 (3.27) | 51.77 (9.71) |
花朵线索 | 8.07 (2.65) | 47.34 (8.00) |
变量 | 第一层 | 第二层 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | β | t | |
权力动机 | 0.16 | 1.71 | 0.11 | 1.19 |
线索类型 | 0.27 | 2.93** | -0.38 | -1.56 |
权力动机×线索类型 | 0.59 | 2.86** | ||
F | 5.08** | 6.34** | ||
R2 | 0.08 | 0.15 | ||
R2变化 | 0.06** |
表2 权力动机、线索类型对最后通牒博弈中分配金额的多元分层回归
变量 | 第一层 | 第二层 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | β | t | |
权力动机 | 0.16 | 1.71 | 0.11 | 1.19 |
线索类型 | 0.27 | 2.93** | -0.38 | -1.56 |
权力动机×线索类型 | 0.59 | 2.86** | ||
F | 5.08** | 6.34** | ||
R2 | 0.08 | 0.15 | ||
R2变化 | 0.06** |
不同分组 | 分配金额 |
---|---|
眼睛线索高权力动机组(n = 30) | 54.77 (10.74) |
眼睛线索低权力动机组(n = 27) | 48.44 (7.25) |
花朵线索高权力动机组(n = 35) | 46.71 (9.28) |
花朵线索低权力动机组(n = 23) | 48.30 (5.58) |
表3 不同分组条件下被试分配金额(元)的平均数与标准差
不同分组 | 分配金额 |
---|---|
眼睛线索高权力动机组(n = 30) | 54.77 (10.74) |
眼睛线索低权力动机组(n = 27) | 48.44 (7.25) |
花朵线索高权力动机组(n = 35) | 46.71 (9.28) |
花朵线索低权力动机组(n = 23) | 48.30 (5.58) |
条件 | 权力动机 | 分配金额 |
---|---|---|
公开情境 | 6.94 (3.27) | 66.16 (22.03) |
匿名情境 | 6.37 (3.28) | 50.74 (24.47) |
表4 公开与匿名情境下权力动机得分与捐资金额的平均数与标准差
条件 | 权力动机 | 分配金额 |
---|---|---|
公开情境 | 6.94 (3.27) | 66.16 (22.03) |
匿名情境 | 6.37 (3.28) | 50.74 (24.47) |
变量 | 第一层 | 第二层 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | β | t | |
权力动机 | 0.09 | 1.11 | 0.09 | 1.15 |
他人在场 | 0.31 | 3.81*** | -0.17 | -0.93 |
权力动机×他人在场 | 0.53 | 2.96** | ||
F | 8.30*** | 8.76*** | ||
R2 | 0.11 | 0.16 | ||
R2变化 | 0.05** |
表5 权力动机、他人在场对公共物品困境中捐资金额的多元分层回归
变量 | 第一层 | 第二层 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | β | t | |
权力动机 | 0.09 | 1.11 | 0.09 | 1.15 |
他人在场 | 0.31 | 3.81*** | -0.17 | -0.93 |
权力动机×他人在场 | 0.53 | 2.96** | ||
F | 8.30*** | 8.76*** | ||
R2 | 0.11 | 0.16 | ||
R2变化 | 0.05** |
不同分组 | 捐资金额 |
---|---|
公开情境高权力动机组(n = 40) | 74.25 (18.62) |
公开情境低权力动机组(n = 30) | 55.37 (21.85) |
匿名情境高权力动机组(n = 36) | 47.14 (22.90) |
匿名情境低权力动机组(n = 34) | 54.56 (25.81) |
表6 不同分组条件下被试捐资金额(代币)的平均数与标准差
不同分组 | 捐资金额 |
---|---|
公开情境高权力动机组(n = 40) | 74.25 (18.62) |
公开情境低权力动机组(n = 30) | 55.37 (21.85) |
匿名情境高权力动机组(n = 36) | 47.14 (22.90) |
匿名情境低权力动机组(n = 34) | 54.56 (25.81) |
[1] | Acton J. E. E. D. A., & Himmelfarb G . ( 1948). Essays on freedom and power. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. |
[2] |
Anderson C., & Kilduff G. J . ( 2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18( 5), 295-298.
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz077 URL pmid: 31644798 |
[3] |
Aydinli A., Bender M., Chasiotis A., Cemalcilar Z., & van de Vijver F . ( 2014). When does self-reported prosocial motivation predict helping? The moderating role of implicit prosocial motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 38( 5), 645-658.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9411-8 URL |
[4] |
Barclay P . ( 2013). Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34( 3), 164-175.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.02.002 URL |
[5] |
Bereczkei T., Birkas B., & Kerekes Z . ( 2010). The presence of others, prosocial traits, machiavellianism. Social Psychology, 41( 4), 238-245.
doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000032 URL |
[6] |
Bergstrom C. T., & Lachmann M . ( 2001). Alarm calls as costly signals of antipredator vigilance: The watchful babbler game. Animal Behaviour, 61( 3), 535-543.
doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1636 URL |
[7] | Boehm C., & Flack J. C . ( 2010). The emergence of simple and complex power structures through social niche construction. In A. Guinote & T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 46-86). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. |
[8] |
Boksem M. A. S., Mehta P. H., van den Bergh B., van Son V., Trautmann S. T., Roelofs K., ... Sanfey A. G . ( 2013). Testosterone inhibits trust but promotes reciprocity. Psychological Science, 24( 11), 2306-2314.
doi: 10.1177/0956797613495063 URL pmid: 24071565 |
[9] |
Carbon C. C., & Hesslinger V. M . ( 2011). Bateson et al.’s (2006) cues-of-being-watched paradigm revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70( 4), 203-210.
doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000058 URL |
[10] |
Chasiotis A., Hofer J., & Campos D . ( 2006). When does liking children lead to parenthood? Younger siblings, implicit prosocial power motivation, and explicit love for children predict parenthood across cultures. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4( 2), 95-123.
doi: 10.1556/JCEP.4.2006.2.2 URL |
[11] |
Dabbs J. M., Carr T. S., Frady R. L., & Riad J. K . ( 1995). Testosterone, crime, and misbehavior among 692 male prison inmates. Personality and Individual Differences, 18( 5), 627-633.
doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)00177-T URL |
[12] | de Waal F. B . ( 1998). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. |
[13] |
Ditlmann R. K., Purdie-Vaughns V., Dovidio J. F., & Naft M. J . ( 2017). The implicit power motive in intergroup dialogues about the history of slavery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112( 1), 116-135.
doi: 10.1037/pspp0000118 URL pmid: 28032775 |
[14] |
Donhauser P. W., Rösch A. G., & Schultheiss O. C . ( 2015). The implicit need for power predicts recognition speed for dynamic changes in facial expressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 39( 5), 714-721.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9484-z URL |
[15] | Eisenberg N., Fabes R. A., & Sprinrad T. L . ( 1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701-778). New York: Wiley. |
[16] |
Eisenegger C., Naef M., Snozzi R., Heinrichs M., & Fehr E . ( 2010). Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour, Nature, 463( 7279), 356-359.
doi: 10.1038/nature08711 URL pmid: 19997098 |
[17] |
Ekström M . ( 2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15( 3), 530-546.
doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6 URL |
[18] |
Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A . ( 2007). G*Power 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 URL |
[19] |
Fodor E. M., Wick D. P., & Conroy N. E . ( 2012). Power motivation as an influence on reaction to an imagined feminist dating partner. Motivation and Emotion, 36( 3), 301-310.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-011-9254-5 URL |
[20] |
Grafen A . ( 1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144( 4), 517-546.
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8 URL pmid: 2402153 |
[21] |
Griskevicius V., Tybur J. M., & van den Bergh B . ( 2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98( 3), 392-404.
doi: 10.1037/a0017346 URL pmid: 20175620 |
[22] |
Güth W., Schmittberger R., & Schwarze B . ( 1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3( 4), 367-388.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1241 URL pmid: 31905399 |
[23] |
Hardy C. L., & van Vugt M . ( 2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32( 10), 1402-1413.
doi: 10.1177/0146167206291006 URL pmid: 16963610 |
[24] |
Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Fehr E., Gintis H., ... Henrich N. S . ( 2005). “Economic man” in cross- cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28( 6), 795-815.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000142 URL pmid: 16372952 |
[25] |
Hoffmann R., & Tee J. Y . ( 2006). Adolescent-adult interactions and culture in the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27( 1), 98-116.
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2005.06.014 URL |
[26] |
Inoue Y., Takahashi T., Burriss R. P., Arai S., Hasegawa T., Yamagishi T., & Kiyonari T . ( 2017). Testosterone promotes either dominance or submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game depending on players’ social rank. Scientific Reports, 7( 1), 5335.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05603-7 URL pmid: 28706184 |
[27] | Jiao C., Zhang M. Q., Wu L., & Ji W . ( 2010). The revised short version of multi-motive grid in mainland China. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 8( 1), 49-53. |
[ 焦璨, 张敏强, 吴利, 纪薇 . ( 2010). 多元动机网格测验(MMG-S)中文版的修订报告. 心理与行为研究, 8( 1), 49-53.] | |
[28] |
Keller J., & Pfattheicher S . ( 2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25( 5), 363-372.
doi: 10.1002/per.797 URL |
[29] |
Kopányi-Peuker A., Offerman T., & Sloof R . ( 2017). Fostering cooperation through the enhancement of own vulnerability. Games and Economic Behavior, 101, 273-290.
doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2015.10.001 URL |
[30] |
Kurzban R., DeScioli P., & O'Brien E . ( 2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28( 2), 75-84.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001 URL |
[31] |
Lammers J., & Stapel D. A . ( 2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14( 1), 113-126.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226483 URL pmid: 31905206 |
[32] |
Lammers J., Stoker J. I., Jordan J., Pollmann M. M. H., & Stapel D. A . ( 2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological Science, 22( 9), 1191-1197.
doi: 10.1177/0956797611416252 URL pmid: 21771963 |
[33] |
Lien J. W., & Zheng J . ( 2019). Self-commitment for cooperation. Working Paper.
URL pmid: 12233488 |
[34] |
Lien J. W., Zheng J., & Zhuo Y . ( 2018). The cooperative consequences of contests. Working Paper.
URL pmid: 12233488 |
[35] |
Magee J. C., & Langner C. A . ( 2008). How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality, 42( 6), 1547-1559.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.009 URL |
[36] |
Maner J. K., & Mead N. L . ( 2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99( 3), 482-497.
doi: 10.1037/a0018559 URL pmid: 20649369 |
[37] |
Manesi Z., van Lange P. A. M., & Pollet T. V . ( 2015). Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes. PloS One, 10( 11), e0141433.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141433 URL pmid: 26544692 |
[38] |
McClelland D. C . ( 1970). The two faces of power. Journal of International Affairs, 24( 1), 29-47.
doi: 10.1007/s10067-019-04797-7 URL pmid: 31848913 |
[39] |
Pfattheicher S., & Keller J . ( 2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45( 5), 560-566.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v45.5 URL |
[40] |
Ridgeway C., & Diekema D . ( 1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54( 1), 79-93.
doi: 10.2307/2095663 URL |
[41] |
Russell B . ( 1938). Power: A new social analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.07.002 URL pmid: 30236235 |
[42] |
Schultheiss O. C., & Brunstein J. C . ( 2002). Inhibited power motivation and persuasive communication: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality, 70( 4), 553-582.
doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05014 URL pmid: 12095191 |
[43] |
Schultheiss O. C., & Hale J. A . ( 2007). Implicit motives modulate attentional orienting to facial expressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 31( 1), 13-24.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9042-9 URL |
[44] | Schultheiss O. C.,& Köllner M. G . (in press). Implicit motives. In O.P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4 ed.). New York: Guilford. |
[45] |
Schultheiss O. C., Wirth M. M., Waugh C. E., Stanton S. J., Meier E. A., & Reuter-Lorenz P . ( 2008). Exploring the motivational brain: Effects of implicit power motivation on brain activation in response to facial expressions of emotion. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3( 4), 333-343.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsn030 URL pmid: 19015083 |
[46] |
Sellers J. G., Mehl M. R., & Josephs R. A . ( 2007). Hormones and personality: Testosterone as a marker of individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 41( 1), 126-138.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.004 URL |
[47] |
Sokolowski K., Schmalt H. D., Langens T. A., & Puca R. M . ( 2000). Assessing achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once: The Multi-Motive Grid (MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74( 1), 126-145.
doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA740109 URL pmid: 10779937 |
[48] |
Stanton S. J., & Schultheiss O. C . ( 2009). The hormonal correlates of implicit power motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43( 5), 942-949.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.001 URL |
[49] |
van Honk J., Montoya E. R., Bos P. A., van Vugt M., & Terburg D . ( 2012). New evidence on testosterone and cooperation. Nature, 485( 7399), E4-E5.
doi: 10.1038/nature11136 URL pmid: 22622587 |
[50] |
Vermeersch H., T'sjoen G., Kaufman J. M., Vincke J., & van Houtte M . ( 2010). Gender ideology, same-sex peer group affiliation and the relationship between testosterone and dominance in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Biosocial Science, 42( 4), 463-475.
doi: 10.1017/S0021932010000106 URL pmid: 20444319 |
[51] |
, Vongas J. G., & Al Hajj R . ( 2017). The effects of competition and implicit power motive on men's testosterone, emotion recognition, and aggression. Hormones and Behavior, 92, 57-71.
doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.04.005 URL pmid: 28455183 |
[52] |
Wang J. F., Liu L., Yang Q. W., Zhang J. P., & Yan J. H . ( 2017). The implicit need for power predicts recognition memory for anger faces: An electrophysiological study. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 207-214.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.010 URL |
[53] |
Wang J. F., Liu L., & Yan J. H . ( 2014). Implicit power motive effects on the ERP processing of emotional intensity in anger faces. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 90-97.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.005 URL |
[54] |
Wang J. F., Liu L., & Zheng Y . ( 2011). Effects of implicit power motive on the processing of anger faces: An event- related potential study. Journal of Research in Personality, 45( 5), 441-447.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.004 URL |
[55] |
Weber J. M., Kopelman S., & Messick D. M . ( 2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8( 3), 281-307.
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4 URL pmid: 15454350 |
[56] |
Wedekind C., & Milinski M . ( 2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288( 5467), 850-852.
doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.850 URL pmid: 10797005 |
[57] |
Wibral M., Dohmen T., Klingmüller D., Weber B., & Falk A . ( 2012). Testosterone administration reduces lying in men. PloS One, 7( 10), e46774.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046774 URL pmid: 23071635 |
[58] |
Willer R . ( 2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74( 1), 23-43.
doi: 10.1177/000312240907400102 URL |
[59] | Winter D. G. ( 1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press. |
[60] |
Xin Z. Q., Liu Y. H., Yang Z. X., & Zhang H. C . ( 2016). Effects of minimal social cues on trust in the investment game. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19( 3), 235-243.
doi: 10.1111/ajsp.v19.3 URL |
[61] |
Zurbriggen E. L . ( 2000). Social motives and cognitive power- sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78( 3), 559-581.
doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.559 URL pmid: 10743881 |
[1] | 何宁, 王紫祎, 林嘉浩, 李梦, 游旭群. 叙述性信息对狭隘合作行为的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 513-525. |
[2] | 蒯玲, 卫海英, 姚琦, 肖婷文, 谢升成. 时间标志对炫耀性亲社会行为意愿的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 526-543. |
[3] | 李卉, 刘思懿, 庞怡. 社交机器人对3~5岁儿童分享行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 573-583. |
[4] | 李曦, 纪林芹, 迟晓慧, 王舒冉, 张文新, 曹衍淼. 多巴胺系统基因调节青少年同伴拒绝与亲社会行为关系: 平行潜增长模型[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 584-598. |
[5] | 聂衍刚, 陈沛, 王林欣, 喻承甫, 利振华. 父母情感温暖、自我控制与青少年亲社会行为的关系: 多基因的调节作用及父母差异[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 599-613. |
[6] | 韩宪国, 金国敏, 李丹, 刘世宏, 吴琴, 刘俊升, 陈欣银. 父母温暖与儿童晚期亲社会行为的关系: 集体取向的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 614-630. |
[7] | 林荣茂, 余巧华, 胡添祥, 张九妹, 叶玉珊, 连榕. 敬畏感与亲社会行为关系的三水平和结构方程模型元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 631-651. |
[8] | 孙瑾, 杨静舒. 互惠利他的先行优势:品牌的互惠角色影响消费者亲社会行为[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 315-330. |
[9] | 苑明亮, 伍俊辉, 金淑娴, 林靓, 寇彧, Paul A. M. Van Lange. 中国社会陌生人之间合作行为的变迁:基于社会困境研究的元分析(1999~2019)[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1159-1175. |
[10] | 王天鸿, 金珊, 程子鹏, 娄宇, 谢晓非. 利他炫耀中的预测偏差:助人者低估来自旁观者的社会评价[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1210-1224. |
[11] | 王婧嫣, 张洪. 直觉还是推理?亲社会行为的决策模式与人性感知[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1225-1238. |
[12] | 石荣, 刘昌, 唐慧琳, 郝俊懿, 沈汪兵. 自发的善行:加工模式和情境紧急性影响亲社会行为[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1239-1251. |
[13] | 林靓, 徐博雅, 杨莹, 张庆鹏, 寇彧. 青少年亲社会行为的网络分析及核心维度[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1252-1265. |
[14] | 吴小燕, 付洪宇, 张腾飞, 鲍东琪, 胡捷, 朱睿达, 封春亮, 古若雷, 刘超. 共赢促进合作的认知计算机制: 互惠中积极期望与社会奖赏的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1299-1312. |
[15] | 王丹, 付雨佳, 陈文锋. 社会情境对情绪感染的影响:一项基于EMG的超扫描研究[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(8): 1047-1060. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||