心理学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (1): 55-65.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00055
收稿日期:
2019-06-19
发布日期:
2019-11-21
出版日期:
2020-01-25
通讯作者:
王建峰,戴冰
E-mail:wjfzy1985@163.com;daibing080402@126.com
基金资助:
Received:
2019-06-19
Online:
2019-11-21
Published:
2020-01-25
Contact:
WANG Jianfeng,DAI Bing
E-mail:wjfzy1985@163.com;daibing080402@126.com
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] | 张玮玮, 陈逸群, 朱莉琪. “近朱者赤”:同伴捐赠决策信息对青少年亲社会行为的影响及公正世界信念的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(9): 1453-1464. |
[2] | 陈沛琪, 张银玲, 胡馨木, 王静, 买晓琴. 10~12岁儿童社会价值取向对第三方利他行为的影响:情绪的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(8): 1255-1269. |
[3] | 张萱, 刘萍萍. 熟悉度促进人们与垃圾分类中的志愿者合作及其作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(8): 1358-1371. |
[4] | 刘倩文, 王振宏. 亲子关系、感觉加工敏感性与COMT Val158Met多态性对学前儿童亲社会行为的交互影响[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 711-725. |
[5] | 王俊秀, 刘洋洋. “均”与“寡”阶段性变动下中国居民公平感的变迁[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(3): 406-420. |
[6] | 段文婷, 孙启武, 王铭, 吴才智, 陈真珍. 青少年早期亲社会行为倾向、内化问题和外化问题发展级联的个体内分析[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(7): 813-827. |
[7] | 何怡娟, 胡馨木, 买晓琴. 共情关怀对公平决策的影响——来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(4): 385-397. |
[8] | 崔丽莹, 卜炜玮, 高权丽, 吴琴, 黄瑶, 韩宪国, 罗俊龙. 歧视知觉对初中生的合作倾向与行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 259-269. |
[9] | 刘文兴, 祝养浩, 柏阳, 王海江, 韩翼. 孤芳自赏还是乐于助人?员工自恋对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 300-312. |
[10] | 张文新, 李曦, 陈光辉, 曹衍淼. 母亲积极教养与青少年亲社会行为:共情的中介作用与OXTR基因的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(9): 976-991. |
[11] | 熊承清, 许佳颖, 马丹阳, 刘永芳. 囚徒困境博弈中对手面部表情对合作行为的影响及其作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(8): 919-932. |
[12] | 陈思静, 邢懿琳, 翁异静, 黎常. 第三方惩罚对合作的溢出效应:基于社会规范的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(7): 758-772. |
[13] | 吕飒飒, 孙欣, 沈林林, 武雨晴, 赵纾, 王霏, 汪祚军. 群体共同经历影响不公平感知[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(7): 773-787. |
[14] | 苗晓燕, 孙欣, 匡仪, 汪祚军. 共患难, 更同盟:共同经历相同负性情绪事件促进合作行为[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(1): 81-94. |
[15] | 张丹丹, 王驹, 赵君, 陈淑美, 黄琰淋, 高秋凤. 抑郁倾向对合作的影响:双人同步近红外脑成像研究[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 609-622. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||