【作者】 赵立军；

【导师】 刘永芳；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 应用心理学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 在国家日益民主的发展过程中,肯定会有越来越多的问题、政策涉及到一个重要的判断,那就是公平性。研究公平判断的因素具有重要的现实意义。考虑到框架效应对社会各领域的判断和决策都会造成相当的影响,框架效应会对公民的公平判断造成影响吗?围绕这个问题展开了系统探索。对于框架效应对公平判断和决策的影响,我们从三个方面进行了探索,一是个体人格变量；是思维特征；三是态度、价值观、任务域。研究结果表明：1.实验1表明人格变量中只有神经质人格特征在框架效应与公平判断和决策中作用显著,认知需要效应不显著。2.实验2表明正负框架下的公平判断,其思维方式存在不对称的特点。实验3表明半球认知风格在框架效应与公平判断和决策中作用不显著。但半球认知风格与性别交互作用显著。实验4表明自我相关性与自我卷入在框架效应与公平判断和决策中作用显著。3.实验5证实了框架效应只能影响公平态度的外围的、具体方面,而不能影响核心的、一般的公平态度。这与社会表达理论的观点一致。社会表达理论认为信息加工的性质不是由个体差异唯一决定,同样由社会内部及其文化引伸出的、按照共享表征形式提供的资源所决定。同时社会表达理论认为对给定的一个社会问题,框架方式只能影响与这个问题具体方面相关的孤立的态度和认知(外围元素),然而,框架不太可能影响锚定在思想深处社会表达的相关态度,与一般态度和价值(中心或核心元素)相连的强烈和一致的评估,不太可能受到影响。实验6证实了态度的核心成分—公平价值观的强弱在框架效应与公平判断和决策中作用显著。强价值观对中介变量有较大的调节,而弱价值观对中介变量调节作用较小。同时发现强弱价值观与框架类型存在交互作用。实验7证实了公平原则在正负框架下没有表现出显著效应,表明价值元素很难受到框架效应的影响；但公平原则跨任务域时,正负框架效应显著,表明被试对公平原则的评价受任务情境的影响；在正框架方式下,被试在资源分配中认为非平均主义原则(如绩效、能力、努力、需要、工作年限)更公平。本系列实验研究在一定程度上表明了框架对公平领域判断的影响主要与事件和个体自身的相关性、个体所具备的深层的核心公平观念、具体的任务领域等因素有关。从决策科学的角度讲,在框架效应对公平判断的影响中,个体人格的神经质特征、与个体的相关性、任务域可以看作是调节因素,而个体所具有的对公平的深层态度、公平价值观及其强弱、公平原则则是影响公平判断的决定因素。研究还表明了思考内容的改变是框架效应的中介因素。实验表明社会精英可以在一定程度上通过框架操作公民的具体公平态度、公平价值观以外的方面,但他们不能够操作公民的核心公平观念、核心价值原则,不管其形式如何变化。一旦涉及到与公民自我相关性高的事件、涉及公民核心公平价值观、价值原则时,将无法实现其预期目的。尽管到目前有证据表明有孤立的不胜任的存在,更一般的结论是公民在大多数情况下,在公平领域能够以胜任和理性的方式理解和运用框架。最后,对未来的研究提出了三点构想。更多还原

【Abstract】 The more democratic the society, the more social issues and policies will touch upon the justice judgment. The exploration of the factors influencing justice judgment has important theoretical and practical significance.Taking into account the considerable influences that framing effect on the judgment and decision-making in all areas of society, can framing effect influences citizen’s justice judgment? We explore the issue systematically. We explore the influences that framing effect on citizens’justice judgment and decision-making from three aspects. Firstly, Individual personality variables; Secondly, thinking characteristics; Thirdly, attitudes, values, task domain.The results indicated that:(1)Experiment 1 showed that only neurotic personality variables was significant in the influence that framing effect having on the justice judgments and decision-making. Need for cognition was not significant.(2)Experiment 2 showed that the way of thinking on the justice judgment and decision-making was asymmetric in the positive and negative frame. Experiment 3 showed that hemisphere cognitive style on the justice judgment and decision-making was not significant in the influence that framing effect having on the justice judgments and decision -making. But the interaction of hemisphere cognitive style and gender was significant. Experiment 4 showed that self-related and self-involvement was significant in the influence that framing effect having on the justice judgments and decision -making.(3) The view which social representations theory holds was confirmed by experiments 5. The framing manner only influences the peripheral and specific justice attitudes. It couldn’t influence the core and generalized justice attitudes. Social representations theory argues that the nature of information processing is determined not only by individual differences. but also by the resources provided by the share representations of culture in the society. Meanwhile the representational theory of attitude claims that framing manner of a given social issue may influence isolated attitudes and cognitions related to specific aspects of that issue(peripheral elements).however,framing should be less likely to influence relevant attitudes to the extent that they are anchored in societally elaborated representations(central or core element). Experiment 6 confirmed that the core elements—strength of justice values was significant in the influence that framing effect having on the justice judgments and decision -making. The mediator were greatly moderated by strong justice values, but the mediator were lessly moderated by weak justice values.Meanwhile there existed interaction between strength of values and the framing manner. Experiment 7 confirmed that justice principles were not significance in two framing manner. This showed that the value’s elements were difficult to be influenced by framing manner. But justice principles were significance across tasks in two framing manner showed that subjects’evaluation on the justice principle was influenced by the task domain. Subjects judged non-egalitarian principles more equitable in the allocation of resources in positive framing manner (performance, ability, effort, needs, work tenure principle).The study of a series of experiments showed that the influence of framing manner on the justice judgment and decision-making was mainly correlated with such factors:correlation with the individual’s own, individual’s deep and the core concept of justice, the specific task domain. From the perspective of decision-making science, neurotic personality characteristics of individuals’, the relevance with the individual own, task domain can be seen as moderators while individuals’deep-seated justice attitudes, justice values and its strength, the justice principles are the determinants of justice judgments in the influence that framing effect having on the justice judgments and decision -making. The study also showed the content’s change taked into account was mediator of framing effect.Experimental results showed that the social elite could operation citizens’ specific justice attitudes and other aspects out of justice values to a certain extent.but they can not operate the citizens’core justice values, the core values principles irrespective of how its form changes. When the events are highly self-related with the citizen, and relating with citizen’s core justice value and value principles, the social elite will not be able to achieve their intended purpose. Although up to now, there was some evidence showed that there existed isolated incompetent, More general conclusion is that in most cases citizens can understand and use the framing manner competently and rationally.Finally,I put forward three ideas for future research.更多还原