心理发展与教育 ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 466-473.

• 认知与社会性发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

作为情境变量的移情对暴力态度的影响

李小平1, 闫鸿磊1, 云祥2, 陈陈1   

  1. 1. 南京师范大学心理学院, 南京 210097;
    2. 南京森林警察学院治安系, 南京 210023
  • 出版日期:2014-09-15 发布日期:2014-09-15
  • 通讯作者: 陈陈,Email:chenchen@njnu.edu.cn E-mail:chenchen@njnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金(10YJA840019);江苏省社会科学基金(10SHB003).

The Effects of Empathy as Contextual Variable on Violence Attitude

LI Xiao-ping1, YAN Hong-lei1, YUN Xiang2, CHEN Chen1   

  1. 1. School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097;
    2. Department of Public Security, Nanjing Forest Police College, Nanjing 210023
  • Online:2014-09-15 Published:2014-09-15

摘要: 本研究将移情作为影响个体暴力态度的情境变量,通过对移情的启动来考察状态移情对暴力态度的影响。实验1在启动被试的移情感后,采用暴力IAT的方法考察被试内隐暴力态度的变化;实验2则在移情启动之后,用FMMU变态人格危险性评估问卷中的冲动倾向(VIO)考察被试的外显暴力的变化。实验结果显示,在启动被试的移情感后,我们没有发现被试的内隐和外显暴力态度发生显著变化,但经移情和性别的交互作用检验后发现,移情的启动减弱了男性被试的外显暴力态度,而对女性被试没有影响。研究结果表明,移情与暴力态度之间不存在内隐联结关系。根据以往的研究结果,移情对暴力态度的影响一是取决于意识层面的认知加工过程,二是与个体的特质性移情水平的高低有关。

关键词: 状态移情, 暴力态度, 内隐联结测验 (IAT)

Abstract: Empathy refers to the degree to which a person subjectively identifies and commiserates with a victim and feels emotional distress. Past research has demonstrated the close relationship between empathy and violent attitudes or behaviors. Past findings also suggested that empathy was negatively associated with violence and aggression, and positively associated with prosocial behaviors. In most studies, however, empathy measures were almost always based on self-report scales in which participants indicated the extent to which they empathized with, felt sympathy for, or felt sorry for a particular person or a group of people. In our research, we experimentally manipulated empathy as a contextual variable. We hypothesized that when people were primed with empathy, their attitudes toward violence would be reduced. Specifically, we expected that unconsciously primed feelings of empathy would decrease people's approval of violence. Two experiments examined the impact of priming empathy on people's implicit and explicit attitudes toward violence. In experiment 1, 131 undergraduates (76 female) were randomly assigned into either the empathy prime condition or the neutral/control condition. Participants were given a word search task that served as the prime. For participants in the empathy prime condition, the word search task contained 13 words related to the concept of empathy (e.g., concern, sensitive, share, care, etc.) and 5 neutral words. For participants in the neutral prime condition, the word search task only contained 18 neutral words. Participants then completed the violence Implicit Association Test (violence IAT). In Experiment 2, 206 students (108 female) followed the same procedure as experiment 1. After the empathy priming, the participants fulfilled a violent attitude scale, which served as an explicit measure for attitude toward violence. The results indicate that participants in the empathy prime and neutral prime conditions did not differ significantly in their implicit or explicit attitudes toward violence. However, an interaction effect between empathy and sex emerged with regard to explicit attitudes, such that explicit attitudes toward violence significantly reduced after the empathy prime for male participants, but not for female participants. These results suggest that the activating feelings of empathy do not weaken the linking of violence and negative cognition. The effects of empathy on reducing violence depend on the cognitive processing of self-awareness and individuals' dispositional empathy.

Key words: state empathy, attitude toward violence, Implicit Association Test (IAT)

中图分类号: 

  • B844.3
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihoriet, N., Swing, E. L, Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768-781.
Baron, R. A. (1974). Aggression as a function of victim's pain cues, level of prior anger arousal, and exposure to an aggressive model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 117-124.
Barrett, L., Henzi, P., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Primate cognition: From‘what now' to‘what if'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7, 494-497.
Batson, C.D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W.J. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A.Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 183-187.
Davis, Mark, H., Jay, G., Hull, & Richard, D. Young, and Gregory G. Warren (1987). Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133.
Decety, J. (2006). Human empathy. Japanese Journal of Neuropsychology, 22, 11-33.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P.L. (2004) The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavior Cognition Neuroscience Review. 3, 71-100.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163.
Giancola, P. R. (2003). The moderating effects of dispositional empathy on alcohol-related aggression in men and women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 275-281.
Gray, N. S., MacCulloch, M. J., Smith, J., Morris, M., & Snowden, R. J. (2003). Violence viewed by psychopathic murderers. Nature, 423, 497-498.
Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
Harris, S. T., & Picchioni, M. M. (2013). A review of the role of empathy in violence risk in mental disorders. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 18, 335-342.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476.
Kaukiainen, A., et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D.A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 279-289.
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. S. Schwarz (Eds.). Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies(pp. 59-102). New York: Guilford.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.
Ozkan, Y., & Cifci, E. G. (2009). The effect of empathy lever on peer bullying in schools. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 4, 31-38.
Perner, J., & Lang, B. (1999). Development of theory of mind and executive control, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 337-344.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cote, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltne, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771-784.
Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275-289.
Richetin, J., & Richardson, D. S. (2008). Automatic processes and individual differences in aggressive behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 423-430.
Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2010). Implicit social cognition in forensic settings. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds). Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford. pp522-534.
Snowden, R. J., Gray, N. S., Smith, J., Morris, M., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2004). Implicit affective associations to violence in psychopathic murderers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15, 620-641.
Sprinkle, J. E. (2008). Animals, empathy, and violence: Can animals be used to convey principles of prosocial behavior to children? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice January, 6, 47-58.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in five-year-olds. Social Development, 13, 1-13.
Williams, L. E., Hennessey, S. R. & Bargh, J. A. (2011). Finding pleasure in the unpleasant: Social context moderates the enjoyment of aversive Media. Unpublished manuscript. Invited revision at Journal of Consumer Research.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
戴春林, 杨治良, 吴明证. (2005). 内隐攻击性的实验研究. 心理科学, 28, 96-98.
关慕桢, 刘旭峰, 苗丹民, 吕静, 洪霞, 杨海. (2010). 激情犯和累惯犯暴力态度的比较. 心理学报, 42, 599-606.
李小平, 杨晟宇, 李梦遥. (2012). 权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响. 心理学报, 44, 964-971.
徐德淼, 唐日新, 解军. (2007).外显和内隐攻击性表现方式的性别差异实验研究.心理科学, 30, 1342-1344.
肖利军, 刘旭峰, 苗丹民. (2010). 青少年暴力犯罪人格问卷的编制. 实用预防医学, 17, 2140-2142.
杨治良. (2008). 内隐攻击性与同情的关系研究. 宁波大学学报(人文科学版), 21, 94-98.
杨治良, 刘素珍, 高桦. (1996). 内隐与外显社会认知(攻击性)的性别差异之实验研究. 湖北大学学报, 3, 80-83.
应贤慧, 戴春林. (2008). 中学生移情与攻击行为:攻击情绪与认知的中介作用.心理发展与教育, 2, 73-78.
云祥, 李小平, 杨建伟. (2009). 暴力犯内隐攻击性研究. 心理学探新, 29, 62-65.
[1] 陈朝阳, 马兵兵, 马婷, 张锋. 亲社会视频游戏对玩家人性化知觉水平的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 561-569.
[2] 陈艳红, 程刚, 关雨生, 张大均. 大学生客观社会经济地位与自尊:主观社会地位的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 594-600.
[3] 李晓彤, 王雪玲, 王大华, 燕磊. 青年子女的传统孝观念及其与早期父母教养行为的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 601-608.
[4] 刘兆敏, 张琼林. 青少年脑发育的神经法学研究与应用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 656-663.
[5] 侯珂, 刘艳, 屈智勇, 蒋索. 留守对农村儿童青少年社会适应的影响:倾向值匹配的比较分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 646-655.
[6] 陈潇, 江琦, 侯敏, 朱梦音. 具身道德:道德心理学研究的新取向[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 664-672.
[7] 姬旺华, 张兰鸽, 寇彧. 公正世界信念对大学生助人意愿的影响:责任归因和帮助代价的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(5): 496-503.
[8] 张豹, 黄赛, 侯秋霞. 网络游戏成瘾者注意焦点转换功能的特异性损伤研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(5): 533-539.
[9] 姜永志, 白晓丽. 大学生手机互联网依赖对疏离感的影响:社会支持系统的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(5): 540-549.
[10] 康勇军, 王霄, 屈正良. 职业院校教师情感承诺与职业倦怠的关系:情感承诺的中介作用和职称的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(5): 550-560.
[11] 陈浩彬, 汪凤炎. 大学生智慧内隐认知的实验研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 363-370.
[12] 邢学玮, 伍新春, 侯建芳, 刘畅, 陈玲玲. 父亲的角色态度对其教养投入的影响:母亲态度类型的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 387-395.
[13] 王岩, 王大华, 付琳, 姜薇, 翟晓艳. 老年人夫妻依恋稳定性及其与配偶支持的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 396-402.
[14] 项紫霓, 张兴慧, 黎亚军, 王耘, 李燕芳. 3~5岁儿童母亲抚养压力类型特点及其影响因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 427-434.
[15] 陈禹, 任国防, 李海江, 杨瑜, 关丽丽, 胡新雨, 杨娟. 自尊与心理性应激反应的关系:社会认可需求的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 435-441.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!