How to Make Justice Judgment of Multiple Referents:Bandwagon Effect and Snob Effect
-
摘要: 基于社会比较理论，将影响分配公平感的参照对象信息分为三类：参照对象平均水平信息, 与特定参照对象相比的不利信息、有利信息。采用4×2×2模拟情境实验分析了三类参照对象信息对分配公平感的影响，结果发现：参照对象平均水平信息对分配公平感影响力最大；分配公平判断中存在攀比效应，当与特定参照对象相比的不利信息呈现时，分配公平感显著降低；分配公平判断中存在虚荣效应，且在参照对象平均水平信息缺失时效应最强。Abstract: Based on social comparison theory, the information of referents can be divided into three categories: information of average (IA); information of better paid referent (IB); information of worse paid referent (IW). In this study, three hundred and twenty eight college students participated in the scenario experiment, and a 4×2×2 randomized design was adopted. The results indicated that: (a) the main effect of IA was significant: the perception of distributive justice was lowest when participants were informed that they were paid less than average, and the perception of distributive justice was highest when participants knew that they got more than average; (b) the bandwagon effect was significant in all conditions of IA: when participants got IB, their perception of distributive justice decreased sharply; (c) the strongest snob effect appeared when IA was absent: when participants got IW, their perception of distributive justice increased dramatically. Finally, the theoretical and empirical implications of this study are discussed.
-
Key words:
- distributive justice /
- referent /
- bandwagon effect /
- snob effect
-
表 1 实验描述性统计结果
不利信息 有利信息 高于平均水平 等于平均水平 低于平均水平 平均水平信息缺失 呈现 呈现 4.65(1.19) 4.12(1.36) 2.06(0.80) 4.39(1.64) 缺失 4.04(1.89) 3.32(1.38) 1.45(0.67) 2.52(1.29) 缺失 呈现 5.06(1.26) 3.76(1.48) 2.55(0.76) 4.91(1.15) 缺失 4.78(1.17) 3.55(1.57) 2.26(0.87) 3.71(1.01) 注：括号内为标准差。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 方差分析结果
变量 MS df F p η2 参照对象平均水平(IA) 91.67 3 56.66 0.00 0.353 不利信息(IB) 20.51 1 12.68 0.00 0.039 有利信息(IW) 43.53 1 26.90 0.00 0.079 IA×IB 3.17 3 1.96 0.12 0.018 IA×IW 6.04 3 3.73 0.01 0.035 IB×IW 4.64 1 2.86 0.09 0.009 IA×IB×IW 0.17 3 0.11 0.96 0.001 注：η2为统计效应大小，反映自变量的解释力。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同参照对象平均水平下分配公平感比较结果
自变量水平 M SD B C D 均值差(标准误) 均值差(标准误) 均值差(标准误) 高于参照对象平均水平(A) 4.60 1.46 0.89**(0.200) 2.53**(0.201) 0.69**(0.196) 等于参照对象平均水平(B) 3.71 1.45 1.65**(0.202) -0.20(0.197) 低于参照对象平均水平(C) 2.06 0.87 -1.84**(0.198) 参照对象平均水平信息缺失(D) 3.91 1.56 注：**表示p＜0.01。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 刘得明, 龙立荣. (2008).国外社会比较理论新进展及其启示—兼谈对公平理论研究的影响.华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 22(5), 103-108. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/82843A/200805/28366489.html [2] 周浩, 龙立荣. (2007).公平敏感性研究述评.心理科学进展, 15(4), 702-707. http://journal.9med.net/html/qikan/jcyxyswyxgc/xlkxjz/20074154/... [3] 周浩, 龙立荣. (2010).公平社会比较的参照对象选择研究述评.心理科学进展, 18(6), 948-954. http://www.doc88.com/p-982349503613.html [4] Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 267-299. https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-52797-21312/... [5] Ambrose, M., Hadand, K., & Kulik, C. (1991). Influence of social comparisons on perceptions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 239-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.239 [6] Cremer, D. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 3-12. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3 [7] Ganegoda, D. B., & Folger, R. (2015). Framing effects in justice perceptions: prospect theory and counterfactuals. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 126(1), 27-36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597814000788 [8] Gibbons, F. (2002). Comparison-level preferences after performance: is downward comparison theory still useful? Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 865-880. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.865 [9] Grienberger, I., Rutte, C., & Van Knippenberg, F. (1997). Influence of social comparisons of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 913-919. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.913 [10] Harcourt, M., Hannay, M., & Lam, H. (2013). Distributive justice, employment-at-will and just-cause dismissal. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 311-325. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1400-9 [11] O'Neill, B., & Mone, M. (2005). Psychological influences on referent choice. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(3), 273-282. http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&... [12] Por, H., & Budescu, D. V. (2013). Revisiting the gain-loss separability assumption in prospect theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(4), 385-396. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v26.4 [13] Stouten, J., Kuppens, P., & Decoster, S. (2013). Being angry for different reasons: the role of personality in distributive justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(4), 795-805. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2013.43.issue-4 [14] Tsai, C. C., Yang, Y. K., & Cheng, C. H. (2014). The effect of social comparison with peers on self-evaluation. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 526-536. doi: 10.2466/07.PR0.115c20z7 [15] Van Den Bos, K., & Lind, E. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I don't know the outcome of others? the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1034-1046. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034 [16] Van Den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493-1503. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1493 [17] Van Den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: the role of affect as information in psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 482-498. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.482 [18] Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7), 612-627. doi: 10.1108/02683940210444067 [19] Yip, J. J., & Kelly, A. E. (2013). Upward and downward social comparisons can decrease prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 591-602. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2013.43.issue-3 -
点击查看大图
图(1) / 表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 156
- HTML全文浏览量: 116
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0