人际距离对大学生学术诚信行为判断的影响
The Effect of Interpersonal Distance on College Students’ Academic Integrity Behavior Judgment
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2017.711170, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 1,375  浏览: 6,604  国家科技经费支持
作者: 丁怡彤, 吴继霞：苏州大学教育学院，江苏 苏州
关键词: 人际距离；大学生；学术诚信；问卷编制；Interpersonal Distance； College Students； Academic Integrity； Questionnaire Development
摘要: 目的：采用实验法探讨人际距离对大学生学术诚信行为判断的影响。方法：随机抽取江苏省某大学1~3年级学生450名，让被试对自编的学术诚信情境问卷进行评价，这个量表分别涉及不同的人际距离和诚信维度。本研究采用3 (人际距离：亲密组、疏远组、中性组) × 8 (诚信概念的心理维度：言行一致、心言一致、心行一致、心言行一致、言行冲突、心言冲突、心行冲突、心言行冲突)的混合实验设计，其中人际距离是被试间变量，诚信概念的8个心理维度是被试内变量，被试在学术诚信情境量表上的诚信程度评分是因变量。结果：不同人际距离对大学生学术诚信行为判断影响显著，F(2,316) = 16.50，p < .05；性别仅在关系疏远的人际距离条件下表现出显著差异，t(100) = −2.80，p < .05；在亲密组和中性组，差异都不显著。结论：人际距离对大学生学术诚信行为判断产生影响。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the influence of interpersonal distance on the judgment of academic integrity behavior of college students by experimental method. Methods: 450 college students from Grade 1 - 3 in a university in Jiangsu were selected randomly, and then the subjects were asked to finish their academic integrity situation questionnaire, which involved different interpersonal distance and integrity dimensions. This study used 3 (interpersonal distance: intimate group, distant group and the neutral group) × 8 (psychological dimension of the concept of integrity: 1 - 8) mixed experimental design: the interpersonal distance was the subjects variable; 8 psychological dimensions of the concept of integrity were internal subjects variables; subjects’ score in the academic integrity situation questionnaire was the dependent variable. Results: College students’ academic integrity behavior has been significantly affected by the different interpersonal distances, F (2316) = 16.50, p < .05; the gender variable was only in the interpersonal distance conditions of distant that showed significant difference, t (100) = −2.80, p < .05; in the intimate group and the neutral group, the differences were not significant. Conclusion: Interpersonal distance has an influence on academic integrity behavior judgment of college students.
文章引用：丁怡彤, 吴继霞 (2017). 人际距离对大学生学术诚信行为判断的影响. 心理学进展, 7(11), 1371-1380. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2017.711170

参考文献

[1] 房华强, 朱坚强(2013). 基于道德两难情境的大学生诚信自律机制探讨. 学校党建与思想教育, 3(7), 41-43.
[2] 费孝通(1998). 乡土中国生育制度(p. 10). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[3] 胡晓轩(2013). 当前大学生学术诚信现状的调查与思考. 前沿, 344(18), 115-117.
[4] 景娟娟(2014). 社会距离对大学生道德判断的影响. 重庆与世界, 31(10), 73-76.
[5] 冷洁, 吴继霞(2016). 从汉字、成语隐喻看诚信概念隐含的结构维度. 苏州大学学报教育科学版, 4(1), 36-49.
[6] 王起友, 王莹(2013). 大学生诚信意识缺失问题实证研究. 河北师范大学学报(教育科学版), 15(6), 81-84.
[7] 王晓琦, 王颖, 佟丹丹, 黄玉兰(2016). 大学生考试作弊现状及诚信考试保障体系的构建. 才智, (7).
[8] 吴慧红, 余嘉元(2008). 基于MJT的道德结构验证性分析研究. 心理科学, 31(4), 963-965.
[9] 徐柏才(2008). 诚信道德的历史渊源与大学生诚信教育. 中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版), 28(1), 177-180.
[10] 张新民(2008). 我国当代大学生诚信制度构建的多维思考. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 34(3), 67-70.
[11] 赵奕(2010). 中美大学学术诚信教育比较研究. 图书馆工作与研究, (5), 17-20.
[12] 郑睦凡, 赵俊华(2013). 权力如何影响道德判断行为: 情境卷入的效应. 心理学报, 45(11), 1274-1282.
[13] Anderman, E., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and Cheating during Early Adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.84
[14] Aquino, K., & Americus Reed, I. I. (2002). The Self-Importance of Moral Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
[15] Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104, 216-235.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
[16] Gehring, D., Nuss, E. M., & Pavela, G. (1986). Issues and Perspectives on Academic Integrity. Washington DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
[17] Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive Load Selectively Interferes with Utilitarian Moral Judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004
[18] Guroglu, B, Haselager, G. J., van Lieshout, C. F. et al. (2008). Why Are Friends Special? Implementing a Social Interaction Simulation Task to Probe the Neural Correlates of Friendship. NeuroImage, 39, 903-910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.007
[19] Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
[20] Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s Wrong, But Everybody Does It: Academic Dishonesty among High School And College Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 209-228.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1088
[21] Lucas, B. J., & Livingston, R. W. (2014). Feeling Socially Connected Increases Utilitarian Choices in Moral Dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.011
[22] Schab, F. (1991). Schooling without Learning: Thirty Years of Cheating in High School. Adolescence, 26, 839-847.
[23] Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Strategically Controlling Information to Help Friends: Effects of Empathy and Friendship Strength on Beneficial Impression Management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 357-372.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1454