) 华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院, 上海 200062
收稿日期:2020-08-04出版日期:2021-03-25发布日期:2021-01-27通讯作者:陆静怡E-mail:jylu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目资助(71771088)“Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles?” A misprediction about help recipients
SHANG Xuesong, CHEN Zhuo, LU Jingyi() School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
Received:2020-08-04Online:2021-03-25Published:2021-01-27Contact:LU Jingyi E-mail:jylu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 好心帮倒忙事件时有发生, 帮忙失败的施助者往往认为受助者会苛责自己, 因而可能不愿再次提供帮助。这种预测准确吗?通过6个研究( N = 1763), 对比施助者对受助者反应的预测和受助者的实际反应, 发现了施助者在好心帮倒忙时的预测偏差：他们高估了受助者的负面反应。而在帮忙成功时, 施助者未出现预测偏差或预测偏差的强度较弱。导致该预测偏差的原因是, 施助者更为关注自身的能力, 以为受助者也关注自己的能力, 而受助者更为在意施助者的温暖程度。
图/表 8
表1施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究1)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.41 (1.61) | 6.12 (1.05) | F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003 |
| 失败 | -0.14 (2.83) | 2.01 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.31 (1.52) | 6.26 (0.97) | F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001 |
| 失败 | -0.44 (3.14) | 2.10 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 6.14 (0.80) | 6.35 (0.61) | F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094 |
| 失败 | 4.61 (1.10) | 5.38 (1.34) | F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.89 (0.94) | 5.93 (0.93) | F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792 |
| 失败 | 4.52 (1.12) | 5.15 (1.09) | F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001 |
表1施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究1)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.41 (1.61) | 6.12 (1.05) | F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003 |
| 失败 | -0.14 (2.83) | 2.01 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.31 (1.52) | 6.26 (0.97) | F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001 |
| 失败 | -0.44 (3.14) | 2.10 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 6.14 (0.80) | 6.35 (0.61) | F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094 |
| 失败 | 4.61 (1.10) | 5.38 (1.34) | F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.89 (0.94) | 5.93 (0.93) | F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792 |
| 失败 | 4.52 (1.12) | 5.15 (1.09) | F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001 |
表2施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究2a)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 4.80 (1.71) | 5.64 (1.42) | F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001 |
| 失败 | -2.34 (2.02) | -0.44 (2.34) | F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.01 (1.61) | 5.60 (1.62) | F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004 |
| 失败 | -2.26 (2.23) | -0.76 (2.44) | F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.77 (0.90) | 5.79 (0.94) | F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915 |
| 失败 | 3.31 (1.28) | 3.94 (1.49) | F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.45 (1.06) | 5.56 (1.00) | F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395 |
| 失败 | 3.59 (0.94) | 4.25 (0.98) | F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的评分 | |||
| 成功 | 0.72 (0.43) | 0.84 (0.39) | F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029 |
| 失败 | -0.92 (0.50) | -0.48 (0.56) | F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001 |
表2施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究2a)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 4.80 (1.71) | 5.64 (1.42) | F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001 |
| 失败 | -2.34 (2.02) | -0.44 (2.34) | F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.01 (1.61) | 5.60 (1.62) | F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004 |
| 失败 | -2.26 (2.23) | -0.76 (2.44) | F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.77 (0.90) | 5.79 (0.94) | F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915 |
| 失败 | 3.31 (1.28) | 3.94 (1.49) | F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.45 (1.06) | 5.56 (1.00) | F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395 |
| 失败 | 3.59 (0.94) | 4.25 (0.98) | F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的评分 | |||
| 成功 | 0.72 (0.43) | 0.84 (0.39) | F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029 |
| 失败 | -0.92 (0.50) | -0.48 (0.56) | F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001 |
表3施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究4)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.23 (2.00) | 6.11 (1.10) | F(1, 141) = 10.82, p = 0.001 |
| 失败 | -0.68 (2.56) | 2.04 (3.16) | F(1, 140) = 31.81, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 4.90 (1.99) | 5.60 (1.72) | F(1, 141) = 5.03, p = 0.027 |
| 失败 | -0.51 (2.62) | 1.56 (3.15) | F(1, 140) = 18.13, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 6.28 (0.80) | 6.24 (0.91) | F(1, 141) = 0.10, p = 0.751 |
| 失败 | 3.83 (1.32) | 4.66 (1.60) | F(1, 140) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.89 (0.96) | 5.93 (0.92) | F(1, 141) = 0.08, p = 0.785 |
| 失败 | 4.15 (1.22) | 4.93 (1.19) | F(1, 140) = 14.77, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的评分 | |||
| 成功 | 0.57 (0.41) | 0.69 (0.39) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.091 |
| 失败 | -0.95 (0.67) | -0.33 (0.81) | F(1, 140) = 24.64, p < 0.001 |
| 施助者的能力 | |||
| 成功 | 5.76 (0.85) | 6.00 (0.81) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.086 |
| 失败 | 3.37 (1.10) | 4.11 (1.29) | F(1, 140) = 13.74, p < 0.001 |
| 施助者的温暖 | |||
| 成功 | 6.44 (0.71) | 6.56 (0.73) | F(1, 141) = 0.97, p = 0.325 |
| 失败 | 5.28 (1.21) | 6.08 (1.01) | F(1, 140) = 18.42, p < 0.001 |
表3施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究4)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | |||
| 成功 | 5.23 (2.00) | 6.11 (1.10) | F(1, 141) = 10.82, p = 0.001 |
| 失败 | -0.68 (2.56) | 2.04 (3.16) | F(1, 140) = 31.81, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | |||
| 成功 | 4.90 (1.99) | 5.60 (1.72) | F(1, 141) = 5.03, p = 0.027 |
| 失败 | -0.51 (2.62) | 1.56 (3.15) | F(1, 140) = 18.13, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 6.28 (0.80) | 6.24 (0.91) | F(1, 141) = 0.10, p = 0.751 |
| 失败 | 3.83 (1.32) | 4.66 (1.60) | F(1, 140) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
| 成功 | 5.89 (0.96) | 5.93 (0.92) | F(1, 141) = 0.08, p = 0.785 |
| 失败 | 4.15 (1.22) | 4.93 (1.19) | F(1, 140) = 14.77, p < 0.001 |
| 受助者的评分 | |||
| 成功 | 0.57 (0.41) | 0.69 (0.39) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.091 |
| 失败 | -0.95 (0.67) | -0.33 (0.81) | F(1, 140) = 24.64, p < 0.001 |
| 施助者的能力 | |||
| 成功 | 5.76 (0.85) | 6.00 (0.81) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.086 |
| 失败 | 3.37 (1.10) | 4.11 (1.29) | F(1, 140) = 13.74, p < 0.001 |
| 施助者的温暖 | |||
| 成功 | 6.44 (0.71) | 6.56 (0.73) | F(1, 141) = 0.97, p = 0.325 |
| 失败 | 5.28 (1.21) | 6.08 (1.01) | F(1, 140) = 18.42, p < 0.001 |
图1能力的中介作用(研究4) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, **表示p < 0.01, ***表示p < 0.001
图1能力的中介作用(研究4) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, **表示p < 0.01, ***表示p < 0.001
图2温暖的中介作用(研究4) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, **表示p < 0.01, ***表示p < 0.001
图2温暖的中介作用(研究4) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, **表示p < 0.01, ***表示p < 0.001表4分类示例(研究5)
| 角色 | 与施助者能力相关 | 与施助者的温暖相关 | 其他 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 施助者 | 我帮了倒忙。 觉得有点愧疚, 没有帮好忙。 | 我是出于好心才帮忙搬行李的。 我也是好心。 | 是什么物品? 小孙现在心里是什么感受? |
| 受助者 | 他太毛手毛脚了。 他有点粗心。 | 不怪小孙, 他也是好心, 感谢他。 物品易碎, 他帮我搬是好心。 | 我太倒霉了。 为什么电梯偏偏在修理? |
表4分类示例(研究5)
| 角色 | 与施助者能力相关 | 与施助者的温暖相关 | 其他 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 施助者 | 我帮了倒忙。 觉得有点愧疚, 没有帮好忙。 | 我是出于好心才帮忙搬行李的。 我也是好心。 | 是什么物品? 小孙现在心里是什么感受? |
| 受助者 | 他太毛手毛脚了。 他有点粗心。 | 不怪小孙, 他也是好心, 感谢他。 物品易碎, 他帮我搬是好心。 | 我太倒霉了。 为什么电梯偏偏在修理? |
表5施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究5)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | -0.56 (2.74) | 0.82 (3.16) | F(1, 121) = 6.71, p = 0.011 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | -1.10 (2.55) | 0.37 (2.92) | F(1, 121) = 8.81, p = 0.004 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | 3.38 (1.31) | 4.06 (1.70) | F(1, 121) = 6.32, p = 0.013 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | 4.03 (1.06) | 4.50 (0.97) | F(1, 121) = 6.48, p = 0.012 |
| 受助者的评分 | -0.24 (0.73) | 0.23 (0.81) | F(1, 121) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
| 质询顺序指数 | 0.56 (0.83) | 0.06 (0.96) | F(1, 105) = 8.23, p = 0.005 |
| 质询内容指数 | 0.42 (0.76) | -0.01 (0.76) | F(1, 105) = 8.24, p = 0.005 |
表5施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究5)
| 因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 受助者的感激程度 | -0.56 (2.74) | 0.82 (3.16) | F(1, 121) = 6.71, p = 0.011 |
| 受助者的满意程度 | -1.10 (2.55) | 0.37 (2.92) | F(1, 121) = 8.81, p = 0.004 |
| 受助者的再次求助意愿 | 3.38 (1.31) | 4.06 (1.70) | F(1, 121) = 6.32, p = 0.013 |
| 受助者的推荐意愿 | 4.03 (1.06) | 4.50 (0.97) | F(1, 121) = 6.48, p = 0.012 |
| 受助者的评分 | -0.24 (0.73) | 0.23 (0.81) | F(1, 121) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
| 质询顺序指数 | 0.56 (0.83) | 0.06 (0.96) | F(1, 105) = 8.23, p = 0.005 |
| 质询内容指数 | 0.42 (0.76) | -0.01 (0.76) | F(1, 105) = 8.24, p = 0.005 |
图3质询顺序指数和质询内容指数的中介作用(研究5) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, *表示p < 0.05, **表示p < 0.01
图3质询顺序指数和质询内容指数的中介作用(研究5) 注：图中系数为标准化的回归系数, *表示p < 0.05, **表示p < 0.01参考文献 32
| [1] | Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763. URLpmid: 17983298 |
| [2] | Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323URL |
| [3] | Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, J. F. (2010). ‘‘Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 402-409. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.015URL |
| [4] | Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think？ Psychological Science, 29, 1742-1756. doi: 10.1177/0956797618783714URLpmid: 30183512 |
| [5] | Cooney, G., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). The novelty penalty: Why do people like talking about new experiences but hearing about old ones？ Psychological Science, 28, 380-394. |
| [6] | Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005URLpmid: 17188552 |
| [7] | Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. URLpmid: 12051578 |
| [8] | Flynn, F. J., & Bohns, V. K. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128-143. |
| [9] | Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., & Chen, P. (2019). The status signals paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 690-696. |
| [10] | Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own action and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211URLpmid: 10707330 |
| [11] | Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2018). When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: The role of social distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 365-382. |
| [12] | Hsee, C. K., & Tang, J. N. (2007). Sun and water: On a modulus-based measurement of happiness. Emotion, 7, 213-218. URLpmid: 17352577 |
| [13] | Johnson, E. J., H?ubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461-474. URLpmid: 17470000 |
| [14] | Jung, M. H., Moon, A., & Nelson, L. D. (2020). Overestimating the valuations and preference of others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1193-1214. |
| [15] | Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. |
| [16] | Krueger, J., & Clement, R. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 596-610. |
| [17] | Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29, 1423-1435. URLpmid: 29949445 |
| [18] | Kupor, D., Flynn, F., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Half a gift is not half-hearted: A giver-receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1-9. |
| [19] | Levine, E. E., & Cohen, T. R. (2018). You can handle the truth: Mispredicting the consequences of honest communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1400-1429. |
| [20] | Lu, J., & Xie, X. (2014). To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 47-55. |
| [21] | Newark, D. A., Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 18-29. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.001URL |
| [22] | Reit, E. S., & Critcher, C. R. (2020). The commonness fallacy: Commonly chosen options have less choice appeal than people think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 1-21. URLpmid: 31464482 |
| [23] | Schroeder, J., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 146, 1106-1125. URLpmid: 28557510 |
| [24] | Scopelliti, I., Loewenstein, G., & Vosgerau, J. (2015). You call it “self-exuberance”; I call it “bragging”: Miscalibrated predictions of emotional responses to self-promotion. Psychological Science, 26, 903-914. URLpmid: 25953948 |
| [25] | Spitzmuller, M., & van Dyne, L. (2013). Proactive and reactive helping: Contrasting the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 560-580. |
| [26] | Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 151-162. |
| [27] | Wang, Y., & Xie, X. (2019). Prediction errors in helping and helping-seeking: Causes and coping. Advances in Psychological Science, 27, 121-131. |
| [ 王逸璐, 谢晓非. (2019). 帮助情境中的预测偏差: 成因与应对. 心理科学进展, 27, 121-131.] | |
| [28] | Wang, Z., Mao, H., Li, Y. J., & Liu, F. (2017). Smile big or not? Effects of smile intensity on perceptions of warmth and competence. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 787-805. |
| [29] | Wojciszke, B.(1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 7, 222-232. URLpmid: 6035318 |
| [30] | Wojciszke, B.(2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155-188. |
| [31] | Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264. |
| [32] | Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 796-810. doi: 10.1037/a0016233URLpmid: 19857002 |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 佐斌, 刘晨, 温芳芳, 谭潇, 谢志杰. 性别化名字对个体印象评价及人际交往的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(4): 387-399. |
| [2] | 佐斌, 戴月娥, 温芳芳, 高佳, 谢志杰, 何赛飞. 人如其食：食物性别刻板印象及对人物评价的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(3): 259-272. |
| [3] | 李树文, 罗瑾琏. 领导-下属情绪评价能力一致与员工建言：内部人身份感知与性别相似性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1121-1131. |
| [4] | 吴翰林, 于宙, 王雪娇, 张清芳. 语言能力的老化机制：语言特异性与非特异性因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 541-561. |
| [5] | 郑旭涛,郭文姣,陈满,金佳,尹军. 社会行为的效价信息对注意捕获的影响：基于帮助和阻碍行为的探讨[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 584-596. |
| [6] | 朱振中,刘福,Haipeng (Allan) Chen. 能力还是热情?广告诉求对消费者品牌认同和购买意向的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 357-370. |
| [7] | 王天鸿, 陈宇琦, 陆静怡. 差距知觉的泛化效应：我和你之间的差距有多大?[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(11): 1327-1339. |
| [8] | 彭婉晴,罗帏,周仁来. 工作记忆刷新训练改善抑郁倾向大学生情绪调节能力的HRV证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 648-661. |
| [9] | 陈斯允,卫海英,孟陆. 社会知觉视角下道德诉求方式如何提升劝捐效果[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1351-1362. |
| [10] | 杨群, 张清芳. 汉语图画命名过程的年老化机制：非选择性抑制能力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(10): 1079-1090. |
| [11] | 张明亮, 司继伟, 杨伟星, 邢淑芬, 李红霞, 张佳佳. BDNF基因rs6265多态性与父母教育卷入对小学儿童基本数学能力的交互作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 1007-1017. |
| [12] | 孙鑫,黎坚,符植煜. 利用游戏log-file预测学生推理能力和数学成绩——机器学习的应用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 761-770. |
| [13] | 韦庆旺, 李木子, 陈晓晨. 社会阶层与社会知觉：热情和能力哪个更重要?[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(2): 243-252. |
| [14] | 佐斌,温芳芳,吴漾,代涛涛. 群际评价中热情与能力关系的情境演变：评价意图与结果的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(10): 1180-1196. |
| [15] | 刘湍丽, 白学军. 部分线索对记忆提取的影响：认知抑制能力的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1158-1171. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4896
