心理发展与教育 ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (2): 176-186.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2024.02.04

• 认知与社会性发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

社会临场感与大学生网络过激行为的关系：双自我意识的并行中介及性别的调节作用

郭嘉程1,2, 董柔纯1,2, 许放1,2, 徐旋1,2, 牛更枫1,2, 周宗奎1,2   

  1. 1. 青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室, 武汉 430079;
    2. 华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079
  • 发布日期:2024-03-18
  • 通讯作者: 周宗奎 E-mail:zhouzk@ccnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    全国文化名家暨"四个一批"人才工程项目"青少年的网络社会交往";中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心课题资助"核心素养视角下中小学生健全人格的监测研究"(2021-04-003-BZPK01);华中师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金科研项目"网络心理与行为"(CCNU18CXTD03)。

The Relationship between Social Presence and College Students’ Online Flaming: The Parallel Mediating Roles of Dual Self-awareness and the Moderating Role of Gender

GUO Jiacheng1,2, DONG Rouchun1,2, XU Fang1,2, XU Xuan1,2, NIU Gengfeng1,2, ZHOU Zongkui1,2   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyber Psychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430079;
    2. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079
  • Published:2024-03-18

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

摘要： 基于线索过滤理论和双自我意识理论,通过线上发放问卷的方式对湖北、吉林、山东、浙江四个省份共六所综合和师范类高校的1625名大学生进行调查,以探讨社会临场感对网络过激行为的影响、作用机制以及性别差异。结果表明:(1)社会临场感能够显著正向预测大学生网络过激行为;(2)公我意识和私我意识在社会临场感和大学生网络过激行为之间起并行中介作用,公我意识起正向中介作用,私我意识起负向中介作用,且后者效应大于前者;(3)性别调节该并行中介模型中公我意识路径的前半与后半路径。具体而言,相较于女生,公我意识的正向中介作用对男生更强。本研究探讨了大学生社会临场感通过双自我意识对网络过激行为产生影响的作用机制及性别差异,揭示了私我意识的积极作用,基于去个性化效应的社会认同模型指出网络群体在其中的重要性,发现了男女网络过激行为水平存在差异的原因之一,为网络过激行为的干预提供了指导性建议。

关键词: 社会临场感, 网络过激行为, 公我意识, 私我意识, 大学生, 性别差异

Abstract: In order to explore the impacts of social presence on online flaming, its mechanism, and gender difference, the current study, based on cues-filtered-out theory and dual self-awareness perspective, investigated 1625 college students from six comprehensive and normal universities in Hubei, Jilin, Shandong and Zhejiang provinces by online questionnaire. The results showed that: (1) Social presence positively predicted online flaming; (2) Public self-awareness and private self-awareness played parallel mediating roles between social presence and online flaming, and the negative mediating effects of private self-awareness outweighed the positive mediating effects of public self-awareness; (3) The first and second stages of indirect path of public self-awareness were moderated by gender. Specifically, public self-awareness had a stronger positive indirect effect for males than females. The current research revealed the mechanism and gender difference of college students’ social presence through dual self-awareness on online flaming. Moreover, this study, according to social identity model of deindividuation effects, painted out the importance of online groups in the generation of online flaming, and also found one of the reasons for gender differences in the levels of online flaming. The current study provided guiding suggestions for the intervention.

Key words: social presence, online flaming, public self-awareness, private self-awareness, college student, gender difference

中图分类号: 

  • B844
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002).Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27-51.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York:Genera Learning Press.
Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Factor structure of the private self-consciousness scale:Role of item wording.Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(3), 256-264.
Buchanan, T. (2015). Aggressive priming online:Facebook adverts can prime aggressive cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 323-330.
Buss, A. H. (1980).Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998).On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
Cho, D., & Kwon, K. H. (2015). The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments.Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 363-372.
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C.(2010). V. contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3), 88-104.
Denegri-Knott, J. & Taylor, J. (2005). The labeling game:A conceptual exploration of deviance on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 93-107.
Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, and group presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(5), 497-507.
Donnerstein, E., Donnerstein, M., & Evans, R. (1972). Variables in inter-racial aggression:Anonymity expected retaliation and a riot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(2), 236-245.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972).A theory of objective self-awareness. New York, NY:Academic Press.
Falewicz, A., & Bak, W. (2016). Private vs. public self-consciousness and self-discrepancies.Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4(1), 58-64.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4),522-527.
Gao, W., Liu, Z., & Li, J. (2017). How does social presence influence SNS addiction? A belongingness theory perspective.Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 347-355.
Geller, V., & Shaver, P. (1976). Cognitive consequences of self-awareness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(1), 99-108.
Gervais, W. M.., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about god increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 298-302.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., & Kruck, J. N. (2012). Men are from Mars, woman are from venus? Examing gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 91-98.
Hassanein, K., & Head, M. M. (2007). Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(8), 689-708.
Hayes, A. F. (2018).Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Guilford Press.
Herring, S. C. (2000).Gender differences in CMC:Findings and implications. The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Newsletter. Author Retrieved September 30, 2020, from http://cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring/
Hoffman, M. L. (1971). Identification and conscience development. Child Development, 42, 1071-1082.
Hooi, R., & Cho, H. (2013).The Virtual "Me" is the Actual Me:Self-Disclosure in Virtual Environment. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(pp.883-892).Wailea,HI,USA.
Hwang, J., Lee, H., Kim, K., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2016). Cyber neutralisation and flaming. Behavior & Information Technology, 35(3), 210-224.
Jane, E. A. (2015). Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching online hostility.Ethics and Information Technology, 17, 65-87.
Jin,S., & Rhee, C. (2015). Optimal environment for flamers:Information overload and its effect on hostile behaviors.In Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems(pp.1-14). Puerto Rico.
Jin, S., Rhee, C., & Jang, Y. (2019). Effects of information overload on hostile behaviors online. The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, 24(2), 179-197.
Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires.Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 31(3), 433-438.
Joinson, A.N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour:Virtual worlds, real lives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Joinson, A.N. (2007). Chapter 4-Disinhibition and the Internet, In J. Gackenbach(Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (2nd ed., pp.75-92), Academic Press.
Lea, M., O'Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992).'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication:Observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89-112). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making.International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 34(2), 283-301.
Lea, M., Spears, R., & de-Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me,knowing you:Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526-537.
Lee, E. J. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in Computer-Mediated communication:The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 385-403.
Lee, J., & Jin, C. (2019). The relationship between self-concepts and flaming behavior:Polarity of the online comments.Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 97(19), 2518-2529.
Khalifa, M., & Shen, N. (2004). System design effects on social presence and telepresence in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems(pp. 547-558), Washington, DC.
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-meditated communication:An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion.Human Computer Interaction, 1(1), 77-104.
Kim, K. K., Lee, A. R., & Lee, U. K. (2019). Impact of anonymity on roles of personal and group identities in online communities. Information & Management, 56(1), 109-121.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness.Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221-233.
Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on youtube.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1536-1546.
Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in group support systems research:New conceptualization and measure.Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89-108.
Richard, D. (2009).Typing politics:The role of blogs in American politics. New York:Oxford University Press.
Robert, P. D. (2000).Bowling alone:The collapse and revival of American Community. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Sah, Y. J., & Wei, P. (2015). Effects of visual and linguistic anthropomorphic cues on social perception, self-awareness, and information disclosure in a health website. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 392-401.
Scheier, M. F. (1976). Self-awareness, self-consciousness, and angry aggression.Journal of Personality, 44(4), 627-644.
Schneider, S. K., O'Donnell, L. & Smith, E. (2015). Trends in cyberbullying and school bullying victinization in a regional census of high school students, 2006-2012. Journal of School Health, 85, 611-620.
Schoo, L. A., Zandvoort, M.V., Biessels, G. J., Kappelle, L. J., & Postma, A. (2013). Insight in cognition:Self-awareness of performance across cognitive domains. Applied Neuropsychology Adult, 20(2), 95-102.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology oftelecommunications. Contemporary Sociology, 7(1), 32-33.
Sohn, S., Chung, H. C., & Park, N. (2019). Private self-awareness and aggression in computer-mediated communication:Abusive user comments on online news articles.International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 35(13), 1160-1169.
Sun, S., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2016). Cyberbullying perpetration:A meta-analysis of gender differences.International Journal of Internet Science, 11(1), 62-81.
Sveningsson Elm, M. (2007). Doing and undoing gender in a Swedish Internet community. In M. Sveningsson Elm & J.Sunden(Eds). Cyberfeminism in Northern lights. Gender and digital media in a Nordic context (pp. 104-129). Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Udris, R. (2016). Psychological and social factors as predictors of online and offline deviant behavior among Japanese adolescents. Deviant Behavior, 38(7), 792-809.
Wagenknecht, T., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2018). A janus-faced matter-the role of user anonymity for communication persuasiveness in online discussions. Information & Management, 55(8), 1024-1037.
Wang, X., Lei, L., Liu, D., & Hu, H. (2016). Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents.Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 244-249.
Wong, R. Y. M., Cheung, C. M. K. & Xiao, B. (2018). Does gender matter in cyberbullying perpetration? An empirical investigation.Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 247-257.
Zhou, Y., Zheng, W., & Gao, X. (2019). The relationship between the big five and cyberbullying among college students:The mediating effect of moral disengagement. Current Psychology, 38, 1162-1173.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice:Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska synposium on motivation (pp.237-307). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.
Zimbardo, P. G., Ebbesen, E. B., & Maslach, C. (1977).Influencing attitudes and changing behavior:An introduction to method, theory, and applications of social control and personal power. Addison-Wesly.
褚晓伟. (2017). 环境风险因素与网络欺负:性别和特质攻击的调节作用(硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
丁倩, 张永欣, 周宗奎. (2020). 相对剥夺感与大学生网络过激行为:自我损耗的中介作用及性别差异.心理发展与教育, 36(2), 200-207.
丁子恩, 刘勤学. (2020). 大学生网络交往与网络利他行为的关系:自尊与公我意识的作用. 心理发展与教育, 36(2), 175-183.
段东园, 张学民, 魏柳青, 周义斌, 刘畅. (2014). 暴力媒体接触程度对攻击行为的影响——规范信念和移情的作用. 心理发展与教育, 30(2), 185-192.
胡阳, 范翠英. (2013). 青少年网络欺负行为研究述评与展望. 中国特殊教育, 5, 84-88.
姜永志, 王超群. (2021). 社交网站使用对青少年网络利他行为的影响:有调节的中介模型.中国临床心理学杂志, 29(4), 824-828.
兰玉娟,佐斌. (2009). 去个性化效应的社会认同模型. 心理科学进展, 17(2), 467-472.
李冬梅. (2008). 青少年网络偏差行为的时政与理论研究(博士学位论文).首都师范大学,北京.
李冬梅, 雷雳, 邹泓. (2008). 青少年网上偏差行为的特点与研究展望. 中国临床心理学杂志, 16(1), 95-97.
刘丽, 李扬. (2016). 大学生网络社会支持、自尊和网络欺负之间的关系. 心理技术与应用, 4(6), 349-355+364.
罗伏生, 张珊明, 沈丹, 罗匡. (2011). 大学生网络偏差行为与人格特征及应对方式的关系. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(4), 492-493.
罗昕. (2008). 网络舆论暴力的形成机制探究. 当代传播, 4, 78-80.
马晓辉, 雷雳. (2010). 青少年网络道德与其网络偏差行为的关系. 心理学报, 42(10), 988-997.
牛更枫, 周宗奎, 孙晓军, 范翠英. (2015). 网络匿名性和同伴网络偏差行为对大学生网络偏差行为的影响:自我控制的调节作用. 中国特殊教育, 11, 73-78.
彭贤, 马素红, 李秀明. (2006). 大学生认知风格的性别差异. 中国健康心理学杂志, 14(3), 299-301.
秦璇, 陈曦. (2021). 偶像失格、群体非理性和道德恐慌:粉丝群体互相攻击中的举报策略与诱因. 新闻记者, 10, 52-66.
腾艳杨. (2013). 社会临场感研究综述. 现代教育技术, 23(3), 66-72.
王辰, 陈刚, 刘跃宁, 牛更枫, 殷华敏. (2020). 社会排斥对网络偏差行为的影响:自我控制的中介作用和道德同一性的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 36(2), 208-215.
温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2014). 中介效应分析:方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22(5), 731-745.
谢莹, 李纯青, 高鹏, 刘艺. (2019). 直播营销中社会临场感对线上从众消费的影响及作用机理研究——行为与神经生理视角. 心理科学, 27(6), 990-1004.
徐瑞青. (1994). 国外社会心理学中自我意识理论的发展. 中国人民大学学报, 6, 72-74.
杨洸. (2016). 社会化媒体舆论的极化和共识——以"广州区伯嫖娼"之新浪微博数据为例. 新闻与传播研究, 23(2), 66-79
杨继平, 王兴超, 高玲. (2015). 道德推脱对大学生网络偏差行为的影响:道德认同的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 31(3), 311-318.
杨中芳, 林升栋. (2012). 中庸实践思维体系构念图的建构效度研究. 社会学研究, 27(4), 167-186.
闫海潮. (2021). 论网络空间中社会主义核心价值观的培育. 理论月刊, 7, 29-34.
张中科, 马亮. (2017). 社会资本和社会临场感视角下微信口碑影响力研究. 中国市场, 1, 24-27.
张瑾涛. (2020). 新媒体时代国内女性主义发展中的问题研究——以社会化媒体平台中女性主义污名化现象为例. 科技传播, 12(21), 75-79.
张立彬, 翟清剑, 卢冶, 王科理. (2010). 网络技术发展及其对互动交流的影响探析. 情报科学, 28(2), 190-197.
周峰, 田梦琦. (2015). 图形化用户界面图标的发展趋势探究. 设计, 17, 140-141.
周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.
周宗奎, 刘勤学. (2016). 网络心理学:行为的重构. 中国社会科学评价, 3, 55-67.
邹吉林, 王美芳, 曹仁艳, 闫秀梅. (2009). 性别发展的生物学取向研究述评. 心理科学进展, 17(5), 973-982.
[1] 刘颖, 刘儒德, 毛晨莹, 林静敏, 刘佳彬. 在线视频学习中教师反馈时间和反馈复杂性对大学生学习投入的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 408-417.
[2] 万欢兰, 牛宇洁, 王博晨, 金灿灿. 大学生人生目标、自我控制和学业倦怠间的关系:一项纵向研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 418-426.
[3] 张梅, 黄扬, 于嘉雯, 黄四林. 媒体多任务对大学生阅读绩效的影响：任务难度和类型的调节[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 222-233.
[4] 赵笑梅, 赵昕睿, 王珂珂. 大学生图文信息知识整合的加工:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 18-27.
[5] 丁越, 刘力嘉, 寇彧. 互联网时代的大学生人际关系满意度:线上积极反馈与感知社会支持的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 39-49.
[6] 王祯, 史保莹, 赵好莉, 郭云飞, 王恩国. 情感教学代理的情绪表达和角色对视频学习的影响:学习者经验的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 60-69.
[7] 魏军, 羿聪, 周溪亭. 大学生基于学业表现的自我价值感与学业内卷行为的关联:基于潜变量增长模型分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 692-700.
[8] 焦姣, 牡丹, 史璐. 亲密关系满意度对大学生主观幸福感的影响:一项日记追踪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 720-729.
[9] 衡书鹏, 赵换方, 周宗奎. 虚拟教学代理对认知专注的影响及其内在机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 482-490.
[10] 胡心怡, 陈英和. 大学生新目标投入能力、自我损耗与幸福感的关系:生命意义感的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 348-356.
[11] 谢莉, 金辉, 王志英, 胡宇飞, 杨喜兰, 席娟. 脱贫内生动力对贫困大学生学习投入的影响:自我控制的中介作用和社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 386-397.
[12] 谭德琴, 丁菀, 宋省成, 吴伟, 蔺秀云. 代际间的暴力传递——父母虐待对儿童欺负行为的影响:基于潜变量增长模型的分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 410-419.
[13] 赵笑梅, 程释, 刘子涵, 刘红. 不同语言条件和执行功能对大学生记忆整合的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 153-162.
[14] 廖晨曦, 王大华. 大学生依恋对自尊和人际适应的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 196-205.
[15] 郭滢, 陈晓丹, 刘文志, 刘雨彤, 朱皕. 青少年语义错误记忆发展:学习测验因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 12-21.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 2018 《心理发展与教育》编辑部
地址：北京新街口外大街19号北京师范大学院内　 邮政编码：100875
联系电话：010-58807700 E-mail:pdae@bnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发