中国临床心理学杂志

说话之道:数字优势框架对公平感的影响

作者：张慧马红宇刘燕君徐富明史燕伟

单位：1. 青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室华中师范大学心理学院暨湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室武汉 430079 2. 中国人民大学劳动人事学院北京 100872 3. 江西师范大学心理学院南昌 330022

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2017,25(6):1059-1063

摘要：

目的：探讨数字优势框架对公平感的影响，以及表现评估和对分配结果的预期在其中的序列中介作用。方法：两个实验采用不同的情境，分别以大学生和企业员工为被试，采用单因素（框架：自我优势框架，他人优势框架）被试间设计。结果：①相比于他人优势框架，在自我优势框架下，个体的不公平感更高；②数字优势框架依次通过表现评估和预期对公平感产生间接作用。结论：数字优势框架通过自我表现评估和对分配结果的预期的序列中介来影响个体公平感。

Objective:To explore the effects of numerical farming in favor-self and favor-other on perceived fairness. Methods:Experiment 1 and 2 used a numerical framing (favor-self vs. favor-other) between subject design, respectively. Sixty college students were recruited in experiment 1 to examine the effect of numerical farming on perceived fairness. Sixty nine employees were examined in experiment 2 to explore the mediating effect of perceived performance and expectation of their fair share of reward. Results:①Comparing with the favor-other farming, participants in favor-self farming condition scored more unfairness; ②Perceived performance and expectation served as mediators between numerical farming in favorself and favor-other and perceived fairness. Conclusion:Numerical farming in favor-self and favor-other presentation, perceived performance and expectation fit a serial multi-variable mediation model to affect perceived fairness.

基金项目：

国家自然科学基金青年项目（31200795），华中师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目（CCNU14Z02015），国家自然科学基金面上项目（71571083），2016年华中师范大学优秀博士学位论文培育计划（2016YBZZ120）资助。

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 钟罗金, 范梦, 陈琳, 等. 资源的交换价值和工资性质对其分配公平感的影响. 心理学报, 2014, 9:1392-1399
2 Boivie S, Bednar MK, Barker SB. Social comparison and reciprocity in director compensation. Journal of Management:Official Journal of the Southern Management Association, 2015, 41(6):1578-1603
3 容琰, 隋杨, 杨百寅. 领导情绪智力对团队绩效和员工态度的影响——公平氛围和权力距离的作用. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9):1152-1161
4 汪纯孝, 伍晓奕, 张秀娟. 企业薪酬管理公平性对员工工作态度和行为的影响. 南开管理评论, 2006, 9(6):5-12
5 王宇清, 龙立荣, 周浩. 消极情绪在程序和互动不公正感与员工偏离行为间的中介作用:传统性的调节机制. 心理学报, 2012, 44(12):1663-1676
6 Richter M, König CJ, Koppermann C, et al. Displaying fairness while delivering bad news:Testing the effectiveness of organizational bad news training in the layoff context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2016, 6:779-792
7 Kwong J, Wong K. The role of ratio differences in the framing of numerical information. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2006, 23(4):385-394
8 Wong KFE, Kwong JYY. Between-Individual Comparisons in Performance Evaluation:A Perspective From Prospect Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90(2):284-294
9 Kwong JYY, Wong KFE. Fair or not fair? The effects of numerical framing on the perceived justice of outcomes. Journal of Management:Official Journal of the Southern Management Association, 2014, 40(6):1558-1582
10 Adams JS. Inequity In Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 2(4):267-299
11 Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211(4481):453-458
12 D'Addario M, Pancani L, Cappelletti ER, et al. The hidden side of the Ultimatum Game:The role of motivations and mind-reading in a two-level one-shot Ultimatum Game. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2015, 27(7):98-907
13 Sawaoka T, Hughes BL, Ambady N. Power Heightens Sensitivity to Unfairness Against the Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015, 41(8):1023-1034
14 Kees VDB, Wilke HAM, Lind EA, et al. Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect:Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1998, 74(6):1493-1503
15 Johnson MD, Ilies R, Boles TL. Alternative reference points and outcome evaluation:The influence of affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, 97(1):33-45
16 KÖszegi B, Rabin M. Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes. American Economic Review, 2007, 97(4):1047-1073
17 Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice:a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86(3):386-400
18 Hayes AF. PROCESS:A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. 2012
19 Wang XT. Risk communication and risky choice in context:ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008, 1128(1):78-89
20 Wang XT, Johnson JG. A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 2012, 141(4):743-756
21 熊冠星, 李爱梅, 王晓田. 基于三参照点理论的薪酬差距与离职决策的分析. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(9):1363-1371
22 Bonaccio S, Dalal RS, Highhouse S, et al. Taking Workplace Decisions Seriously:This Conversation Has Been Fruitful. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2010, 3(4):455-464
23 Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and children's acquisition of mathematical and scientific concepts. Learning & Individual Differences, 1991, 3(1):27-59
24 张凤华, 方侠辉, 刘书培. 决策框架和调节定向对模糊规避的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(6):963-967

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】