不同主题和风险下的人际信任:“信任圈”的中、加比较

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在人际关系网络中,那些被信任者构成了个体的"信任圈",信任圈的规模可以代表个体表现出的信任水平。本研究考察了在不同交流主题(借钱、正面和负面信息交流)和风险等级下,中国人和加拿大人信任圈规模的差异。对202名中国和加拿大成年被试的调查表明,交流主题对信任水平有影响,在借钱和交流正面信息时信任圈明显大于交流负面信息时;风险等级越高,信任圈越小,在借钱时人们对风险等级尤其敏感;无论分享正面还是负面信息时,中国人的信任圈都比加拿大人更小,而在借钱方面中国人比加拿大人的信任圈更大。可见,人际信任与主题、风险和文化因素及其交互作用有关,这些结果对于理解信任的文化差异和跨文化交往实践非常有意义。

关键词: 人际信任, 信任圈, 风险, 主题, 跨文化研究

Abstract: In everyday life,varied economic and information exchanges frequently occur between one and another,a primary condition of which is both parities trusting each other.In the study,a new construct named as "trust circle" was developed and the size of the circle was used as an index of one's interpersonal trust level.The purpose of the study was to explore how the size of one's trust circle is affected by the trust domain,risk level and culture in China and Canada.An questionnaire was administrated to 100 Chinese residents in China (mean age 32.92) and 102 Canadians (mean age 31.94) who participated in the study voluntarily.The results showed that:(1) the average trust circle size in different domains differs,specifically,the size of the trust circle in the economic situation is the largest,the size is the smallest in the negative information sharing context and it is in the middle in the positive personal/social information sharing context; (2) the trust circle size varies with risk level; as the economic risk increases the trust circle becomes smaller,as the degree of the shared positive information increases the trust circle becomes larger,and as the degree of the shared negative information increases the trust circle becomes smaller; (3) the trust circle sizes in different cultures are not the same,for example,trust circle size of Chinese participants is larger than Canadians' in the economic risk situation,and Canadians,trust circle sizes are larger than Chinese counterparts' in both positive and negative personal/social information sharing domains.Thus,it can be concluded that whether people trust others is affected by the related domain,the risk level,the culture and interactions of two or three factors.Aforementioned results are heuristic for clarifying culture differences of interpersonal trust and for promoting cross culture communication of people from China and Canada.

Key words: interpersonal trust, trust circle, risk, domain, cross-culture research

中图分类号:

B844.3

牛江河, 辛自强. 不同主题和风险下的人际信任:“信任圈”的中、加比较[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2009, 25(2): 61-67.

NIU Jiang-he, XIN Zi-qiang. Interpersonal Trust for Different Domains and Risk Levels:Comparing the Trust Circle of Chinese and Canadians[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2009, 25(2): 61-67.

参考文献

[1] Yamagishi T,Yamagishi M.Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan.Motivation and Emotion,1994,18:129-166.
[2] Rousseau D M,Sitkin S B,Burt R S,Camerer C.Not so different after all:A cross-discipline view of trust.Academy of Management Review,1998,23:393-404.
[3] Lane C.Introduction:Theories and issue in the study of trust.In:C Lane,R Bachmann (Eds.) Trust within and between organizations (pp.1-30).New York:Oxford University Press,1998.
[4] Williamson O E.Calculativeness,trust and economic organization.Journal of Law and Economics,1993,30:131-145.
[5] Weber M.The religion of China:Confucianism and Taoism.New York:The Free Press,1951.
[6] 张建新,Bond M H.指向具体人物对象的人际信任:跨文化比较及其认知模型.心理学报,1993,25 (2):164-172.
[7] 张建新,张妙清,梁觉.殊化信任与泛化信任在人际信任行为路径模型中的作用.心理学报,2000,32 (3):311-316.
[8] 费孝通.乡土中国,生育制度.北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[9] Hardin R.Trust.Cambridge:Polity Press,2006.
[10] Niu Jianghe.Circles of trust:A comparison of the size and composition of trust circles in Canada and in China.Doctoral dissertation,Carleton University,Ottawa,Canada,2007.
[11] Aiken K D,Boush D M.Trustmarks,objective-source ratings,66 and implied investments in advertising:Investigating online trust and the context-specific nature of internet signals.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2006,34 (3):308-323.
[12] DeSteno D A,Valdesolo P,Bartlett M Y.Jealousy and the threatened self:Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2006,91 (4):626-641.
[13] Fukuyama F.Trust:The social virtues and the creation of prosperity.New York:Free Press,1995.
[14] Viklund M J.Trust and risk perception in Western Europe:A cross-national study.Risk Analysis,2003,23 (4):727-738.
[15] Sohler N L,Fitzpatrick L K,Lindsay R G,Anastos K,Cunningham C O.Does patient-provider racial/ethnic concordance influence ratings of trust in people with HIV infection? AIDS and Behavior,2007,11 (6):884-896.
[16] 王飞雪,山岸俊男.信任的中、日、美比较研究.社会学研究,1999,2:67-82.
[17] Berry J W.Cross-cultural psychology:A symbiosis of cultural and comparative approaches.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,2000,3:197-205.
[18] Triandis H C,Brislin R,Hui C H.Cross-cultural training across the individualism collectivism divide.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,1988,12:269-289.
[19] Yuki M,Maddux W W,Brewer M B,Takemura K.Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,2005,31 (1):48-62.
[20] 黄光国,胡先缙等.面子:中国人的权力游戏.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[21] 张建新,周明洁.中国人人格结构探索:人格特质六因素假说.心理科学进展,2006,14 (4):574-585.
[22] Cvetkovich G,Siegrist M,Murray R,Tragesser S.New information and social trust:Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers.Risk Analysis,2002,22 (2):359-367.
[23] 翟学伟.中国人行动的逻辑.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2001.
[24] Harris C R,Christenfeld N.Jealousy and rational responses to infidelity across gender and culture.Psychological Science,1996,7 (6):378-379.
[25] Watkins D,Mortazavi S,Troffmova I.Independent and interdependent conceptions of self:An investigation of age,gender,and culture differences in importance and satisfaction ratings.The Journal of Comparative Social Science,2000,34:113-114.
[26] 彭泗清.对人与对事:人际交往中的关系区分度与事件区分度.第四届华人心理与行为科学学术研讨会论文(台北),1997.

相关文章 15

[1]	王玉龙, 赵婧斐, 蔺秀云. 家庭风险因素对青少年自伤的累积效应及其性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 240-247.
[2]	陈子循, 李金文, 王雨萌, 刘霞. 累积环境风险与大学生自伤的关系:情绪调节策略的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 109-120.
[3]	徐文明, 方烨仪, 叶彩霞. 家庭早期的累积风险对青少年内化问题的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 793-803.
[4]	肖雪, 郭磊, 赵永萍, 陈富国. 累积生态风险与初中生受欺凌的关系模式：心理弹性的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 648-657.
[5]	陈建文, 刘艳, 谭千保. 累积生态风险与高职生学习倦怠：消极自我图式和网络成瘾的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 576-583.
[6]	袁言云, 王志航, 孙庆, 王东方, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 累积家庭风险与贫困儿童情绪问题的关系:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(1): 100-108.
[7]	任屹, 黄四林. 贫困损害儿童执行功能的作用机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(1): 134-143.
[8]	刘聪慧, 董妍, 王鸿飞, 张登浩. 农村老年人的社会排斥体验与健康状况:有调节的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 752-760.
[9]	袁柯曼, 李白璐, 梁丽婵, 边玉芳. 累积情境风险与流动儿童主观幸福感的关系:个体保护因子的补偿效应和保护效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 546-557.
[10]	陈慧, 何婷, 唐远琼, 唐怡欣, 陆风勇, 蔺秀云. 共情与青少年内外化问题的关系及影响机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 439-446.
[11]	程华斌, 刘霞, 李艺敏, 李永鑫. 养育是一种幸福的体验吗？养育倦怠述评[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(1): 146-152.
[12]	林文毅, 杨怡, 余圣陶. 知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的影响机制:阅读策略的中介效应和主题知识的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 708-714.
[13]	王沛, 刘雨婷, 梁雅君, 谈晨皓. 关系认知与善意认知对大学生人际信任的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(4): 406-413.
[14]	熊俊梅, 海曼, 黄飞, 辛亮, 徐颖. 家庭累积风险与青少年心理健康的关系——心理资本的补偿效应和调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(1): 94-102.
[15]	王薇, 徐知宇, 李永鑫, 程奕芸. 情绪主题绘本阅读对自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪理解障碍的干预效果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 566-572.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed