程序公正对于建设和谐美好社会具有重要现实意义。研究采用情境实验法,编制程序公正材料,考察群体相对剥夺在程序公正影响网络集群行为倾向中的中介作用以及群体认同的调节作用。结果显示：(1)程序公正负向影响大学生的网络集群行为倾向;(2)群体相对剥夺在程序公正与网络集群行为倾向间起中介作用;(3)对于高群体认同者,低程序公正更容易通过增强群体相对剥夺进而提高其网络集群行为倾向。研究为促进公正管理实践、预防网络集群行为以建设和谐社会提供实践指导。
Abstract
The relative deprivation theory suggests that the feeling of unfairness induced by intergroup comparison influences collective action through group relative deprivation. Although previous studies have confirmed the effect of fairness on collective action, it remains unclear how procedural justice affects online collective action intentions and under what conditions this effect is stronger. Online collective action, as a new form of traditional collective action, not only has a great impact on the Internet space, but also may impact the real world, guide public opinion, and may negatively affect the harmonious development of society. Therefore, the first aim of the current study was to establish the situational material of procedural justice in the Chinese cultural context. The second aim of the current study was to explore the cognitive-emotional mechanism of online collective action intentions. The last aim of the current study was to examine the moderating effect of group identification on the cognitive-emotional mechanism of group relative deprivation.
In the preliminary experiment (N = 128), we used a single-factor between-subjects design to examine the manipulation effectiveness of procedural justice using the “dormitory allocation problem” as the situational material. In Experiment 1 (N = 136), we also used a single-factor between-subjects design to explore how high and low procedural justice influence online collective action intentions through group relative deprivation. Experiment 2 (N = 128) used a 2 (procedural justice: high vs. low) × 2 (group identification: high vs. low) between-subjects design to further examine the individual differences in the mediating role of group relative deprivation. By dividing participants into high and low subgroups of procedural justice and group identification, we tested the influence of the interaction between procedural justice and group identification on relative group deprivation, which in turn influences online collective action intentions.
The results are as follows: 1) we successfully manipulated procedural justice by integrating the localized procedural justice principle with the three core principles of procedural justice. Individuals in the high procedural justice group (M = 3.54, SD = .88) perceived higher procedural justice (t [126] = -8.24, p <.001, Cohen’s d = 1.56) than those in the low procedural justice group (M = 2.15, SD = .90). 2) Group relative deprivation was found to play a mediating role in the influence of procedural justice on online collective action intentions (95% CI = [-.29, -.06]): low procedural justice would cause higher group relative deprivation (β = -.05, t = -6.94, p <.001), thereby contributing to higher levels of online collective action intentions (β =.35, t = 3.67, p <.001). 3) Group identification performed a mediated moderating role on the influence of different levels of procedural justice on group relative deprivation (β = -.17, t = -2.35, p < .05): under conditions of high-group identification, procedural justice had an indirect adverse effect on online collective action intentions via group relative deprivation (95% CI = [-.52, -.10]), whereas under conditions of low-group identification, the mediating effect of group relative deprivation between procedural justice and online collective action intentions would be smaller (95% CI = [-.30, -.10]).
In conclusion, from the perspective of the interaction between the external environment (procedural justice) and the psychological process (group identity), this study explored the influence of procedural justice on group cognition, emotion, and behavior, as well as its boundary conditions. In particular, the current study examined when the fair process effect was stronger from the perspective of group identification, providing a new theoretical basis and empirical support for the individual’s psychological and behavioral response in the context of inter-group interaction, and having important implications for future research on inter-group relationship. These findings offer important implications for preventing the occurrence and development of online collective action and provide important references and effective practical guidance for promoting fair management practices and building a harmonious society.
关键词
程序公正 /
网络集群行为倾向 /
群体相对剥夺 /
群体认同
Key words
procedural justice /
online collective active intentions /
group relative deprivation /
group identification
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 卜荣华. (2020). 群际互动与群际威胁: 青年网络集群行为的动力学分析. 山东青年政治学院学报, 36(1), 45-53.
[2] 陈颖, 张野, 韩娜, 王凯. (2023). 校园排斥对初中生网络偏差行为的影响: 相对剥夺感与自我控制的序列中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 39(6), 887-894.
[3] 董天策, 梁辰曦. (2020). 究竟是“网络群体性事件”还是“网络公共事件”抑或其他?——关于“网络舆论聚集”研究的再思考. 新闻与传播研究, 27(1), 87-102.
[4] 杜帆, 吴玄娜. (2017). 程序公正、不确定性对公共政策可接受性的影响: 情感信任、认知信任的中介作用. 心理科学, 40(2), 448-454.
[5] 高记, 马红宇. (2010). 程序公正作用机制中的调节变量. 心理科学进展, 18(4), 623-629.
[6] 高记, 马红宇. (2011). 程序公正的测量及研究操纵. 心理与行为研究, 9(3), 236-240.
[7] 乐国安, 薛婷. (2011). 网络集群行为的理论解释模型探索. 南开学报(哲学社会科学版), 5, 116-123.
[8] 潘超, 辛钊阳, 高冬东, 邢小莉. (2023). 上行社会比较对跨期决策的影响: 相对剥夺感的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 31(1), 189-193.
[9] 汪祚军, 侯怡如, 匡仪, 唐辉一, 赵珍珍, 陈红霞. (2017). 群体共享情绪的放大效应. 心理科学进展, 25(4), 662-671.
[10] 吴玄娜. (2016). 程序公正与权威信任: 公共政策可接受性机制. 心理科学进展, 24(8), 1147-1158.
[11] 熊猛, 叶一舵. (2016). 相对剥夺感: 概念、测量、影响因素及作用. 心理科学进展, 24(3), 438-453.
[12] 中国互联网络信息中心. (2023). 第52次《中国互联网络发展状况统计报告》. https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2023/0828/c88-10829.html
[13] 周浩, 龙立荣, 王燕, 王忠军, 吴怡, 柯善玉. (2005). 分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异. 心理学报, 37(5), 687-693.
[14] 周云, 刘建平, 王鑫强, 许秀芬. (2020). 政策执行偏差情境下公众不公正感对集群行为的影响机制研究. 心理科学, 43(5), 1169-1175.
[15] Badea C., Binning K. R., Sherman D. K., Boza M., & Kende A. (2021). Conformity to group norms: How group-affirmation shapes collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, Article 104153.
[16] Bagci S. C., Turnuklu A., & Bekmezci E. (2018). The buffering role of in-group identification and intergroup contact on the association between perceived discrimination and mental health. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 293-305.
[17] Bornschier S., Häusermann S., Zollinger D., & Colombo C. (2021). How “us” and “them” relates to voting behavior-social structure, social identities, and electoral choice. Comparative Political Studies, 54(12), 2087-2122.
[18] Brockner J., Fishman A. Y., Reb J., Goldman B., Spiegel S., & Garden C. (2007). Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority’s responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1657-1671.
[19] Fabrigar L. R., Petty R. E., Smith S. M., & Crites Jr, S. L. (2006). Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 556-577.
[20] Foster M. D., Hennessey E., Blankenship B. T., & Stewart A. (2019). Can "slacktivism" work? Perceived power differences moderate the relationship between social media activism and collective action intentions through positive affect. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(4), Article 6.
[21] Guimond, S., & Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Relative deprivation theory and the Quebec nationalist movement: The cognition-emotion distinction and the personal-group deprivation issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 526-535.
[22] Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Sage.
[23] Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.
[24] Hogg M. A., Sherman D. K., Dierselhuis J., Maitner A. T., & Moffitt G. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 135-142.
[25] Jones, J., & Trice, M. (2020). Platforms, protests, and the challenge of networked democracy. Springer.
[26] Kershaw C., Rast III D. E., Hogg M. A., & van Knippenberg D. (2021). Divided groups need leadership: A study of the effectiveness of collective identity, dual identity, and intergroup relational identity rhetoric. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(1), 53-62.
[27] Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability, 9(2), Article 205.
[28] Klandermans, P. G. (2014). Identity politics and politicized identities: Identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political Psychology, 35(1), 1-22.
[29] Lee Y., Tao W. T., & Li, J. Y. Q. (2022). Motivations of online and offline activism against racism and xenophobia among Asian-American publics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telematics and Informatics, 67, Article 101751.
[30] Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. Plenum.
[31] Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.
[32] Lu, P. (2018). Structural effects of participation propensity in online collective actions: Based on big data and Delphi methods. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 344, 288-300.
[33] Mathur, P., & Jain, S. S. (2020). Not all that glitters is golden: The impact of procedural fairness perceptions on firm evaluations and customer satisfaction with favorable outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 117, 357-367.
[34] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.
[35] Newman D. T., Fast N. J., & Harmon D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149-167.
[36] Oktavianus J., Davidson B., & Guan L. (2023). Framing and counter-framing in online collective actions: The case of LGBT protests in a Muslim nation. Information, Communication, and Society, 26(3), 479-495.
[37] Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2015). Things we (don’t) want to hear: Exploring responses to group-based feedback. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 126-161.
[38] Schmid K., Hewstone M., Tausch N., Cairns E., & Hughes J. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1085-1098.
[39] Smith H. J., Pettigrew T. F., Pippin G. M., & Bialosiewicz S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203-232.
[40] Sun Q., Molenmaker W. E., Zhang Y. K., Liu Y. F., & van Dijk E. (2022). Procedural fairness facilitates cooperative behavior by enhancing cooperative expectations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(12), Article e12711.
[41] Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
[42] Tausch N., Saguy T., & Bryson J. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 536-553.
[43] Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., & van Zomeren, M. (2021). Identity expression through collective action: How identification with a politicized group and its identity contents differently motivated identity-expressive collective action in the U.S. 2016 presidential elections. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(3), 499-513.
[44] Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
[45] van Zomeren M., Leach C. W., & Spears R. (2012). Protesters as “Passionate Economists”: A dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 180-199.
[46] van Zomeren M., Spears R., Fischer A. H., & Leach C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664.
[47] Wan J., Qin M. Y., Zhou W. J., Zhou H. M., & Li P. P. (2023). Procedural justice, relative deprivation, and intra-team knowledge sharing: The moderating role of group identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 994020.
[48] Xiang C. C., Li C. W., Wu K. K., & Long L. R. (2019). Procedural justice and voice: A group engagement model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(7), 491-503.
[49] Yu G. L., Zhao F. Q., Wang H., & Li S. (2020). Subjective social class and distrust among Chinese college students: The mediating roles of relative deprivation and belief in a just world. Current Psychology, 39(6), 2221-2230.
[50] Zhai X. T., Luo Q. J., & Wang L. (2020). Why tourists engage in online collective actions in times of crisis: Exploring the role of group relative deprivation. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 16, Article 100414.
基金
*本研究得到国家社科基金后期资助项目（22FJKB022）、中国博士后科学基金面上项目（2024M751053）、湖北省高等学校哲学社会科学研究重大项目（19ZD020）和湖北省教育科学规划重点项目（2022GA028）的资助
PDF(1454 KB)
