小学儿童互动公平认知能力的发展及其对社会善念的影响

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.02.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用自编的情境故事考察8～11岁小学儿童互动公平认知能力的发展特点，并进一步探讨互动公平认知类型对社会善念的影响。结果发现：(1)8岁儿童已具备互动公平认知能力并存在情境差异。(2)小学儿童在认知互动不公平情境后的行为可分为关系取向、自我取向、权威取向、情绪取向和冲突取向。(3)小学儿童的互动公平认知类型会影响社会善念。

关键词: 小学儿童, 互动公平认知, 社会善念, 人际公平, 信息公平

Abstract:

The self-designed scenario stories were used to explore the development characteristics of interactional justice cognition ability among primary school children aged 8 to 11, and the impact of interactional justice cognition types on social mindfulness. The results showed that: 1) The 8-year-old children possessed the ability of international justice cognition, with situational differences observed. 2) The behaviors of primary school children after cognizing the interactional injustice scenarios could be divided into relation-orientation, self-orientation, authority-orientation, emotion-orientation, and conflict-orientation. 3) The types of interactional justice cognition of primary school children could affect their social mindfulness.

Key words: primary school children, interactional justice cognition, social mindfulness, interpersonal justice, informational justice

包金金, 丁芳, 左晓扬. 小学儿童互动公平认知能力的发展及其对社会善念的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(2): 177-184.

Jinjin BAO, Fang DING, Xiaoyang ZUO. The Development of Primary School Children’s Ability of Interactional Justice Cognition and Its Impacts on Social Mindfulness[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(2): 177-184.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	包金金. (2019). 小学儿童互动公平认知的发展及其对社会善念的影响(硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
	陈英和. 儿童数量表征与数概念的发展特点及机制. 心理发展与教育, 2015, 31 (1): 21- 28.
	丁芳, 刘颜蓥, 张露. 小学儿童程序公平认知及其归因取向的发展. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (2): 357- 363.
	窦凯, 刘耀中, 王玉洁, 聂衍刚. “乐”于合作: 感知社会善念诱导合作行为的情绪机制. 心理学报, 2018, 50 (1): 101- 114.
	窦凯, 聂衍刚, 王玉洁, 张庆鹏. 人际互动中的社会善念: 概念、测评及影响机制. 心理学进展, 2017, 7 (9): 1101- 1112.
	孙瑾, 杨静舒. 循环的力量: 互惠关系对消费者行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31 (6): 1094- 1108.
	田一, 王莉, 许燕. 社会善念的研究现状及展望. 心理学进展, 2020, 10 (8): 1069- 1078.
	王荣, 桑标. 儿童社会关系概念结构的特点与发展. 心理科学, 2010, 33 (6): 1344- 1351.
	袁博, 刘怡畅, 库婷婷. 感知社会善念对青少年亲社会行为的影响. 心理科学, 2024, 47 (5): 1153- 1162.
	张玮玮, 陈逸群, 朱莉琪. “近朱者赤”: 同伴捐赠决策信息对青少年亲社会行为的影响及公正世界信念的作用. 心理学报, 2023, 55 (9): 1453- 1464.
	周宗奎, 张春妹, Hsueh, Y. 小学儿童的尊重观念与同伴关系. 心理学报, 2006, 38 (2): 232- 239.
	Aïte, A., Berthoz, A., Vidal, J., Roëll, M., Zaoui, M., Houdé, O., & Borst, G. Taking a third-person perspective requires inhibitory control: Evidence from a developmental negative priming study. Child Development, 2016, 87 (6): 1825- 1840. DOI
	Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2013, 98 (4): 678- 689.
	Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, United Kingdom: JAI Press.
	Cakanlar, A., Nikolova, H., & Nenkov, G. Y. I will be green for us: When consumers compensate for their partners’ unsustainable behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 2023, 60 (1): 110- 129. DOI
	Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: Why does gender moderate early adolescent vulnerability. Journal of Family Psychology, 2004, 18 (1): 160- 170.
	Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., & Emonds, G. When do people cooperate? The neuroeconomics of prosocial decision making. Brain and Cognition, 2013, 81 (1): 95- 117.
	de Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: The moderating effect of group size. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(2), 168–174.
	Frick, A., Möhring, W., & Newcombe, N. S. Picturing perspectives: Development of perspective-taking abilities in 4- to 8-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, 5, 386.
	Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2014, 143 (1): 247- 254.
	Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
	Hu, J., Cao, Y., Blue, P. R., & Zhou, X. L. Low social status decreases the neural salience of unfairness. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2014, 8, 402.
	Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 2017, 28 (12): 1848- 1856.
	Kardos, P., Leidner, B., Pléh, C., Soltész, P., & Unoka, Z. Empathic people have more friends: Empathic abilities predict social network size and position in social network predicts empathic efforts. Social Networks, 2017, 50, 1- 5.
	Lam, C. B., Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M. Sibling relationships and empathy across the transition to adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2012, 41 (12): 1657- 1670.
	Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organization justice (pp. 56–88). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
	Ma, L. K., Tunney, R. J., & Ferguson, E. Does gratitude enhance prosociality?: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 2017, 143 (6): 601- 635. DOI
	Mendes, N., Steinbeis, N., Bueno-Guerra, N., Call, J., & Singer, T. Preschool children and chimpanzees incur costs to watch punishment of antisocial others. Nature Human Behaviour, 2018, 2 (1): 45- 51.
	Ongley, S. F., & Malti, T. The role of moral emotions in the development of children’s sharing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 2014, 50 (4): 1148- 1159. DOI
	Pun, A., Birch, S. A. J., & Baron, A. S. Infants use relative numerical group size to infer social dominance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113 (9): 2376- 2381.
	Rakoczy, H., Kaufmann, M., & Lohse, K. Young children understand the normative force of standards of equal resource distribution. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2016, 150, 396- 403. DOI
	Roseth, C. J., Pellegrini, A. D., Bohn, C. M., van Ryzin, M., & Vance, N. Preschoolers’ aggression, affiliation, and social dominance relationships: An observational, longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 2007, 45 (5): 479- 497. DOI
	Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
	Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 2014, 140 (4): 921- 948. DOI
	Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. Anti-equality: Social comparison in young children. Cognition, 2014, 130 (2): 152- 156. DOI
	van der Graaff, J., Carlo, G., Crocetti, E., Koot, H. M., & Branje, S. Prosocial behavior in adolescence: Gender differences in development and links with empathy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2018, 47 (5): 1086- 1099. DOI
	van Doesum, N. J., van Lange, D. A. W., & van Lange, P. A. M. Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013, 105 (1): 86- 103. DOI
	van Doesum, N. J., van Prooijen, J. W., Verburgh, L., & van Lange, P. A. M. Social hostility in soccer and beyond. PLoS One, 2016, 11 (4): e0153577. DOI
	Wu, Y., Leliveld, M. C., & Zhou, X. L. Social distance modulates recipient’s fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 2011, 88 (2–3): 253- 262. DOI
	Yu, R. J., Hu, P., & Zhang, P. Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: An ERP study. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5 (1): 13452. DOI

年龄	性别	n	师生情境	亲子情境	同伴情境	互动公平认知能力得分
8	男	41	3.22±1.06	3.33±0.91	3.83±1.07	10.38±1.04
	女	36	3.40±0.92	3.57±1.17	4.14±0.71	11.11±1.00
	小计	77	3.31±0.99	3.44±1.03	3.97±0.92	10.72±1.03
9	男	47	3.85±0.84	3.33±0.84	3.91±0.81	11.09±0.86
	女	39	3.76±0.73	3.77±0.83	3.99±0.74	11.52±0.77
	小计	86	3.81±0.79	3.53±0.85	3.95±0.77	11.29±0.82
10	男	35	3.50±0.87	3.47±1.10	3.83±0.88	10.80±0.96
	女	33	3.79±0.79	3.56±0.70	3.95±0.67	11.30±0.74
	小计	68	3.68±0.84	3.72±0.95	4.04±0.81	11.44±0.89
11	男	36	4.19±0.67	3.40±0.93	3.67±0.89	11.26±0.90
	女	41	3.79±0.50	3.56±0.71	3.95±0.67	11.30±0.70
	小计	77	4.34±0.59	3.58±0.83	3.84±0.79	11.76±0.81
	总计	308	3.79±0.89	3.56±0.92	3.95±0.83	11.30±0.90

年龄	性别	n	师生情境	亲子情境	同伴情境	互动公平认知能力得分
8	男	41	3.22±1.06	3.33±0.91	3.83±1.07	10.38±1.04
	女	36	3.40±0.92	3.57±1.17	4.14±0.71	11.11±1.00
	小计	77	3.31±0.99	3.44±1.03	3.97±0.92	10.72±1.03
9	男	47	3.85±0.84	3.33±0.84	3.91±0.81	11.09±0.86
	女	39	3.76±0.73	3.77±0.83	3.99±0.74	11.52±0.77
	小计	86	3.81±0.79	3.53±0.85	3.95±0.77	11.29±0.82
10	男	35	3.50±0.87	3.47±1.10	3.83±0.88	10.80±0.96
	女	33	3.79±0.79	3.56±0.70	3.95±0.67	11.30±0.74
	小计	68	3.68±0.84	3.72±0.95	4.04±0.81	11.44±0.89
11	男	36	4.19±0.67	3.40±0.93	3.67±0.89	11.26±0.90
	女	41	3.79±0.50	3.56±0.71	3.95±0.67	11.30±0.70
	小计	77	4.34±0.59	3.58±0.83	3.84±0.79	11.76±0.81
	总计	308	3.79±0.89	3.56±0.92	3.95±0.83	11.30±0.90

取向类型	年龄				df	χ²
取向类型	8岁	9岁	10岁	11岁	df	χ²
关系取向	49(11.58%)	51(11.41%)	41(12.50%)	27(6.64%)	3	8.48*
自我取向	53(12.53%)	65(14.54%)	34(10.37%)	44(10.81%)	3	10.65*
权威取向	62(14.66%)	62(13.87%)	35(10.67%)	69(16.95%)	3	11.90**
情绪取向	35(8.27%)	28(6.26%)	30(9.14%)	39(9.58%)	3	2.24
冲突取向	224(52.96%)	241(53.92%)	188(57.32%)	228(56.02%)	3	7.01

取向类型	年龄				df	χ²
取向类型	8岁	9岁	10岁	11岁	df	χ²
关系取向	49(11.58%)	51(11.41%)	41(12.50%)	27(6.64%)	3	8.48*
自我取向	53(12.53%)	65(14.54%)	34(10.37%)	44(10.81%)	3	10.65*
权威取向	62(14.66%)	62(13.87%)	35(10.67%)	69(16.95%)	3	11.90**
情绪取向	35(8.27%)	28(6.26%)	30(9.14%)	39(9.58%)	3	2.24
冲突取向	224(52.96%)	241(53.92%)	188(57.32%)	228(56.02%)	3	7.01

互动公平认知类型	是否公平	n	社会善念得分
人际公平认知	公平	32	0.63±0.49
	不公平	32	0.23±0.43
	小计	64	0.43±0.50
信息公平认知	公平	32	0.61±0.49
	不公平	32	0.25±0.44
	小计	64	0.43±0.49
	总计	128	0.43±0.50