消极评价来源对网络集群攻击行为的影响：基于群际敏感效应的研究

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.06.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究基于群际敏感效应，通过实验探究了消极评价来源对网络集群攻击行为的影响以及群体愤怒和积极网络接触的作用。采用消极情绪量表、群体愤怒量表、员工评价范式，对被试进行情景实验。结果发现：(1)网络环境中外群体消极评价比内群体消极评价更容易引起网络集群攻击行为；(2)群体愤怒在消极评价来源与网络集群攻击行为的关系中起中介作用；(3)积极网络接触不仅能调节消极评价来源与网络集群攻击行为的直接关系，还能调节群体愤怒中介作用的前半段路径。本研究构建了一个有调节的中介模型，对网络集群攻击行为的治理，维护天朗气清的网络生态具有理论和实践意义。

关键词: 群际敏感效应, 消极评价来源, 网络集群攻击行为, 群体愤怒, 积极网络接触

Abstract: Based on the intergroup sensitivity effect, this study experimentally investigated the influence of negative evaluative sources on online collective aggression, as well as the roles of group anger and positive online contact. A negative emotion scale, a group anger scale, and an employee evaluation paradigm were employed to conduct scenario-based experiments with participants. The results revealed that: 1) negative out-group evaluations in the online environment were more likely to elicit online collective aggression behaviors among Internet users compared to negative in-group evaluations; 2) group anger mediated the relationship between sources of negative evaluations and online collective aggression behaviors; 3) positive online contact not only moderated the direct relationship between sources of negative evaluations and online collective aggression behaviors but also moderated the first half of the mediating path of group anger. This study constructed a moderated mediation model, which holds theoretical and practical significance for the governance of online collective aggression and the maintenance of a healthy and positive online ecology.

Key words: intergroup sensitivity effect, negative evaluative sources, online collective aggression, group anger, positive online contact

中图分类号:

B849

张文海, 沙晶莹. 消极评价来源对网络集群攻击行为的影响：基于群际敏感效应的研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 822-829.

ZHANG Wenhai, SHA Jingying. The Influence of Negative Evaluative Sources on Online Collective Aggression: A Study Based on Intergroup Sensitivity Effect[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(6): 822-829.

参考文献

董颖红, 陈浩, 赖凯声, 乐国安. (2015). 微博客基本社会情绪的测量及效度检验. 心理科学, 38(5), 1141–1146.
高阳, 倪士光, 夏志远, 田午林. (2023). 群体夸耀方式对旁观者网络攻击行为的影响: 旁观者的被挑衅感和群体认同的作用. 心理与行为研究, 21(4), 471–478.
温芳芳, 佐斌. (2018). 最简群体范式的操作、心理机制及新应用. 心理科学, 41(3), 713–719.
薛婷, 陈浩, 乐国安, 姚琦. (2013). 社会认同与内、外群体态度的关系: 群际威胁和群体情绪的中介作用. 心理科学, 36(1), 183–187.
殷融, 张菲菲. (2015). 不同类型集群行为的差异比较. 心理科学进展, 23(1), 120–131.
乐国安, 薛婷. (2011). 网络集群行为的理论解释模型探索. 南开学报(哲学社会科学版), (5), 116–123.
乐国安, 薛婷, 陈浩, 姚琦. (2013). 集体行动参与双路径模型再分析——来自现实与网络行动情境的检验. 心理科学, 36(2), 424–428.
张书维. (2013). 群际威胁与集群行为意向: 群体性事件的双路径模型. 心理学报, 45(12), 1410–1430.
赵杨, 王林, 时勘. (2015). 微博网民情绪敏感度、行为意向与执行意向的关系. 心理与行为研究, 13(1), 99–105.
周云, 刘建平, 王鑫强, 许秀芬. (2020). 政策执行偏差情境下公众不公正感对集群行为的影响机制研究. 心理科学, 43(5), 1169–1175.
Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68(7), 527–542.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 825–843.
Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. (2010). United we stand: Intergroup conflict moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 169–177.
Árnadóttir, K., Lolliot, S., Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2018). Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(6), 784–800.
Brander, T. V., & Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Intergroup sensitivity effect and the war in Iraq: A case of attitudes and intentions diverging. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 166–172.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.
Guegan, J., Moliner, P., & Buisine, S. (2015). Why are online games so self-involving: A social identity analysis of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 349–355.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press.
Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 293–307.
Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in Cyprus. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(1), 97–108.
Li, S. Y., & Feng, B. (2015). What to say to an online support-seeker? The influence of others’ responses and support-seekers’ replies. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 303–326.
Li, S. Y., & Zhang, G. J. (2021). Intergroup communication in online forums: The effect of group identification on online support provision. Communication Research, 48(6), 874–894.
Meleady, R., Seger, C. R., & Vermue, M. (2021). Evidence of a dynamic association between intergroup contact and intercultural competence. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(8), 1427–1447.
Moscatelli, S., Prati, F., & Rubini, M. (2019). If you criticize us, do it in concrete terms: Linguistic abstraction as a moderator of the intergroup sensitivity effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(5-6), 680–705.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85.
Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), 635–642.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2016). Group-level emotions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 15–19.
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., & Davis, M. D. (2008). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 55–72). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069.
van Zomeren, M., & Iyer, A. (2009). Introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 645–660.
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649–664.
Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. (2008). Affective divergence: Automatic responses to others’ emotions depend on group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1063–1079.
White, K. R. G., Bray, J., Lang, J. C., McLeroy, A., Hernandez, S., & McLaughlin, C. (2023). The intergroup sensitivity effect among racial groups in the United States. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(2), 357–379.
Wilson, J. P., & Hugenberg, K. (2010). When under threat, we all look the same: Distinctiveness threat induces ingroup homogeneity in face memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1004–1010.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90.

[1]	谷莉, 黄晓彤, 梁广华, 蔡頠, 郭丰波. 核心自我评价与青少年自伤行为的关系：有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 798-805.
[2]	王旭瑛, 邵杨, 阴晓娟, 金晓康, 金花. 恐惧诉求下希望类健康错误信息的更正：来自行为和眼动的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 813-821.
[3]	王俊材, 吴燕. 背叛创伤群体的信任及其修复：感知社会善念的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 830-838.
[4]	佘升翔, 李事成, 孙彦. “由易入难”的亲环境行为助推机理[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 839-846.
[5]	黄爽, 凌感, 安平. 社会情感能力与幼儿园教师职业倦怠的关系：心理授权和积极应对方式的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 847-853.
[6]	杜江. 地方综合性院校师范生职业认同的双重解析：人口学差异检验与入学动机驱动的链式中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 854-860.
[7]	白博仁, 周详, 张婧婧, 崔虞馨. 人工智能自恋提升人机合作创新意愿及其机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 137-144.
[8]	支慧晶, 刘阳. 竞走裁判员在多人情景下判罚决策的视觉搜索特征[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 130-136.
[9]	张耀华, 徐敏, 黄云云, 辛素飞. 心理韧性缓冲压力生活事件与青少年学业倦怠之间的非线性关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 123-129.
[10]	史滋福, 陈火红, 张艺瀚, 管锦亮, 夏笔奇, 靳紫阳. 父母直升机教养对大学生主观幸福感的影响：自我控制和抑郁的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 116-122.
[11]	王兴超, 田芳芳. 儿童期虐待与欺负行为：青少年道德推脱与父亲道德推脱的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 108-115.
[12]	韩迎春, 王琳萱. 有氧运动、情绪与创造力：流体智力的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 100-107.
[13]	林祟德. “教育家精神”也是中国心理学家精神之追求[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 721-724.
[14]	张克, 杜秀敏, 李立言, 张雪寒, 赵海霞. 酸味与创造力的关系研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 815-823.
[15]	闫景蕾, 傅苗苗, 黄贝, 连帅磊. 问题性社交媒介使用与主观幸福感的关系：技术冲突和疲惫感的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 824-831.