反馈效价与集体效能感对新兵亲群体行为的预测作用
The Predictive Effect of Feedback Valence and Collective Efficacy on Recruits’ Pro-Group Behavior
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2022.128338, PDF,   
作者: 贺 立, 吴朝亮：武警后勤学院研究生大队，天津；王乾宇*, 郝立君：武警后勤学院军事心理学教研室，天津；张 猜：武警内蒙古自治区总队医院，内蒙古 呼和浩特
关键词: 亲群体行为；反馈效价；集体效能感；新兵；Pro-Group Behavior； Feedback Valence； Collective Efficacy； Recrui
摘要: 目的：探讨班长反馈效价对新兵亲群体行为的预测作用，以及班长反馈效价与集体效能感对新兵亲群体行为的交互预测作用。方法：实验一通过情境诱发实验范式模拟反馈，采用情绪评定问卷和亲群体行为评定问卷(投入程度和助人时间)对137名新兵进行测量；实验二采用集体效能感量表测量后通过情境诱发实验范式模拟反馈，采用情绪评定问卷和亲群体行为评定问卷对516名新兵进行测量。结果：1) 积极反馈组的投入程度显著高于消极反馈组的投入程度(t = 7.85, P < 0.001)，积极反馈组的助人时间显著高于消极反馈组的助人时间(t = 2.93, P < 0.01)；2) 预测投入程度时，反馈效价的主效应显著(F = 189.96, P < 0.001)，集体效能感的主效应显著(F = 6.69, P < 0.01)。3) 预测助人时间时，反馈效价的主效应显著(F = 11.42, P < 0.001)，集体效能感的主效应显著(F = 13.57, P < 0.001)，反馈效价和集体效能感的交互作用显著(F = 14.634, P < 0.001)。结论：积极反馈比消极反馈预测更强的亲群体行为；集体效能感与反馈效价对亲群体行为具有交互预测作用，在较高的集体效能感新兵中，积极反馈比消极反馈对亲群体行为的预测差异更加显著。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the predictive effect of squad leader feedback valence on recruits’ pro-group behavior, and the interactive predictive effect of squad leader feedback valence and collective efficacy on recruits’ pro-group behavior. Methods: In Experiment 1, 137 recruits were measured by using the context-induced experimental paradigm to simulate feedback, using emotion assessment questionnaire and pro-group behavior assessment questionnaire (involvement and helping time). In Experiment 2, 516 recruits were measured by using the collective efficacy scale and then simulated feedback through the context-induced experimental paradigm. Results: 1) The degree of involvement of the positive feedback group was significantly higher than that of the negative feedback group (t = 7.85, P < 0.001), and the helping time of the positive feedback group was significantly higher than that of the negative feedback group (t = 2.93, P < 0.001). 2) When predicting the degree of involvement, the main effect of feedback valence was significant (F = 189.96, P < 0.001), and the main effect of collective efficacy was significant (F = 6.69, P < 0.01). 3) When predicting helping time, the main effect of feedback valence was significant (F = 11.42, P < 0.001), and the main effect of collective efficacy was significant (F = 13.57, P < 0.001). The interaction effect was significant (F = 14.634, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Positive feedback induces stronger prediction of pro-group behavior than negative feedback; collective efficacy and feedback valence have an interactive predictive effect on pro-group behavior. In recruits with higher collective efficacy, the difference in pro-group behavior resulting from the two feedbacks was more pronounced.
文章引用：贺立, 吴朝亮, 王乾宇, 郝立君, 张猜 (2022). 反馈效价与集体效能感对新兵亲群体行为的预测作用. 心理学进展, 12(8), 2833-2841. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2022.128338

参考文献

[1] 迟毓凯(2005). 人格与情境启动对亲社会行为的影响. 博士学位论文, 上海: 华东师范大学.
[2] 丛文君(2008). 大学生亲社会行为类型的研究. 硕士学位论文, 南京: 南京师范大学.
[3] 李洋, 方平, 姜媛(2009). 反馈与情绪关系中自我调节的作用. 心理学探新, 29(3), 41-45.
[4] 刘思(2018). 领导反馈影响员工主动行为的双路径模型研究. 硕士学位论文, 广州: 暨南大学.
[5] 刘晓桐(2017). 认同融合对亲群体以及合作行为的影响——责任感和无懈可击感的中介作用. 硕士学位论文, 曲阜: 曲阜师范大学.
[6] 龙君伟(2003). 反馈干预对绩效的影响研究. 心理科学, 26(4), 658-660.
[7] 吕行(2017). 不同威胁情景下极端亲群体行为的差异. 博士学位论文, 武汉: 武汉大学.
[8] 秦鹏飞(2016). 群体效能感与群体认同对群体决策中情感预测偏差的影响. 硕士学位论文, 烟台: 鲁东大学.
[9] 王永丽, 时勘(2003). 上级反馈对员工行为的影响. 心理学报, 35(2), 255-260.
[10] 杨春(2016). 反馈类型对大学生学习成绩的影响: 自我调节学习的中介作用. 博士学位论文, 长春: 东北师范大学.
[11] 姚东旻, 许艺煊, 李昊洋, 郭鸿昌(2021). 教师的表扬或批评如何影响学生成绩——基于CEPS数据的中介效应分析. 北京大学教育评论, 19(1), 109-133+192.
[12] 殷融, 张菲菲(2015). 群体认同在集群行为中的作用机制. 心理科学进展, 23(9), 1637-1646.
[13] 张晓峰(2010). 武警官兵心理健康与职业压力、社会支持、集体效能的关系研究. 硕士学位论文, 济南: 山东师范大学.
[14] 赵宝宝(2019). 新兵“第一适应期”主动性和心理适应的关系. 硕士学位论文, 北京: 北京林业大学.
[15] 朱光明(2008). 表扬与批评的意义. 博士学位论文, 北京: 北京大学.
[16] 邹雨晨, 丁颖, 张旭然, 李燕芳. (2018) 不同类型反馈对儿童学习效果的影响及性别差异. 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 567-575.
[17] Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.[CrossRef] 
[18] Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial Altruism in Humans. Nature, 442, 912-915.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Bowles, S. (2009). Did Warfare among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors? Science, 324, 1293-1298.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-Regulation of Action and Affect. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 3-39). The Guilford Press.
[21] Chinchilla, J., Vazquez, A., & Gómez, Á. (2021). Identity Fusion Predicts Violent Pro-Group Behavior When It Is Morally Justifiable. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-15.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] De Dreu, C. K. W., Balliet, D., & Halevy, N. (2014). Parochial Cooperation in Humans: Forms and Functions of Self-Sacrifice in Intergroup Conflict. In Advances in Motivation Science (Vol. 1, pp. 1-47). Elsevier.[CrossRef] 
[23] George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.[CrossRef] 
[24] Gómez, Á., Bélanger, J. J., Chinchilla, J. et al. (2021). Admiration for Islamist Groups Encourages Self-Sacrifice through Identity Fusion. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article No. 54.[CrossRef] 
[25] Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion Elicitation Using Films. Cognition & Emotion, 9, 87-108.[CrossRef] 
[26] Harackiewicz, J. M., & Larson, J. R. (1986). Managing Motivation: The Impact of Supervisor Feedback on Subordinate Task Interest. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 547-556.[CrossRef] 
[27] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.[CrossRef] 
[28] Ilies, R., Peng, A. C., Savani, K. et al. (2013). Guilty and Helpful: An Emotion-Based Reparatory Model of Voluntary Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1051-1059.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Kennison, J. F. (1990). Pro-Group Actions and Fundamental Pro-Groups. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 66, 185-218.[CrossRef] 
[30] Lang, A., & Betsch, T. (2018). Children’s Neglect of Probabilities in Decision Making with and without Feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 191, Article 191.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Lang, M., Xygalatas, D., Kavanagh, C. M. et al. (2021). Outgroup Threat and the Emergence of Cohesive Groups: A Cross- Cultural Examination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 1-21.[CrossRef] 
[32] Riggs, M. L. et al. (1994). The Impact of Perceived Group Success-Failure on Motivational Beliefs and Attitudes: A Causal Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755-766.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Swann, W. B., Buhrmester, M. D., Gómez, A. et al. (2014a). What Makes a Group Worth Dying for? Identity Fusion Fosters Perception of Familial Ties, Promoting Self-Sacrifice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 106, 912-926.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Swann, W. B., Gómez, Á., Buhrmester, M. D. et al. (2014b). Contemplating the Ultimate Sacrifice: Identity Fusion Channels Pro-Group Affect, Cognition, and Moral Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 713-727.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Swann, W. B., Gómez, A., Huici, C. et al. (2010). Identity fusion And Self-Sacrifice: Arousal as a Catalyst of Pro-Group Fighting, Dying, and Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 824-841.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Swann, W. B., Gómez, A., Seyle, D. C. et al. (2009). Identity Fusion: The Interplay of Personal and Social Identities in Extreme Group Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995-1011.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, A. et al. (2012). When Group Membership Gets Personal: A Theory of Identity Fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441-456.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2012). Protesters as “Pas-sionate Economists” a Dynamic Dual Pathway Model of Approach Coping with Collective Disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 180-199.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H. et al. (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, 649-664.[CrossRef] [PubMed]