相互依存与独立不一致:东亚人和西方人如何看待虚伪的文化差异。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1037/xge0001608
Minjae Seo, Shoko Watanabe, Young-Hoon Kim, Sean M Laurent
{"title":"相互依存与独立不一致:东亚人和西方人如何看待虚伪的文化差异。","authors":"Minjae Seo, Shoko Watanabe, Young-Hoon Kim, Sean M Laurent","doi":"10.1037/xge0001608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Humans worldwide have long deplored hypocrisy, a concept that has been mentioned in texts dating back 100-1,000 years (e.g., the Analects of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, the Bible, and the Qur'an). However, what influences the extent of hypocrisy attribution or counts as hypocrisy may differ as a function of culture. Previous studies have shown that Westerners attribute greater hypocrisy for within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency than East Asians. Building on this, we predict that East Asians' (vs. Westerners') hypocrisy attribution is more heavily influenced by social relationships. Consistent with past research, this can lead to greater leniency. However, as we show, this can also result in the novel finding we present that attributions of mild-to-moderate hypocrisy are made even when no explicit within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency is present. Across six experiments, we found that Koreans (vs. participants from the United States) attributed more hypocrisy to attitude-contradicting behavior when the person enacting the behavior was not the person who stated the attitude but was someone who shared social bonds with that person (i.e., cross-person, within-relationship attitude-behavior inconsistency; \"relational hypocrisy\"). Specifically, Koreans attributed more hypocrisy than Americans when a child's behavior contradicted their parent's views (Experiments 1a and 1b) or when attitude-contradicting behavior was enacted by the child of a close friend (Experiment 2). Experiments 3-5 replicated the findings from Experiments 1-2 using additional social contexts (e.g., a spousal relationship). Supplementary analyses showed that differences in hypocrisy attribution between Americans and Koreans were mediated by cultural differences in their perceptions of shared responsibility within relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interdependent versus independent inconsistency: Cultural differences in how East Asian and Western people attribute hypocrisy.\",\"authors\":\"Minjae Seo, Shoko Watanabe, Young-Hoon Kim, Sean M Laurent\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Humans worldwide have long deplored hypocrisy, a concept that has been mentioned in texts dating back 100-1,000 years (e.g., the Analects of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, the Bible, and the Qur'an). However, what influences the extent of hypocrisy attribution or counts as hypocrisy may differ as a function of culture. Previous studies have shown that Westerners attribute greater hypocrisy for within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency than East Asians. Building on this, we predict that East Asians' (vs. Westerners') hypocrisy attribution is more heavily influenced by social relationships. Consistent with past research, this can lead to greater leniency. However, as we show, this can also result in the novel finding we present that attributions of mild-to-moderate hypocrisy are made even when no explicit within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency is present. Across six experiments, we found that Koreans (vs. participants from the United States) attributed more hypocrisy to attitude-contradicting behavior when the person enacting the behavior was not the person who stated the attitude but was someone who shared social bonds with that person (i.e., cross-person, within-relationship attitude-behavior inconsistency; \\\"relational hypocrisy\\\"). Specifically, Koreans attributed more hypocrisy than Americans when a child's behavior contradicted their parent's views (Experiments 1a and 1b) or when attitude-contradicting behavior was enacted by the child of a close friend (Experiment 2). Experiments 3-5 replicated the findings from Experiments 1-2 using additional social contexts (e.g., a spousal relationship). Supplementary analyses showed that differences in hypocrisy attribution between Americans and Koreans were mediated by cultural differences in their perceptions of shared responsibility within relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001608\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001608","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全世界的人类长期以来都对虚伪深恶痛绝,早在 100-1000 年前的典籍(如《论语》、《道德经》、《圣经》和《古兰经》)中就提到过这一概念。然而,影响虚伪归因程度或将其视为虚伪的因素可能因文化而异。以往的研究表明,西方人对人与人之间态度与行为不一致的虚伪归因大于东亚人。在此基础上,我们预测东亚人(与西方人相比)的虚伪归因受社会关系的影响更大。与过去的研究一致,这可能会导致更宽松的态度。然而,正如我们所展示的那样,这也会导致我们提出的新发现,即即使在人与人之间没有明确的态度-行为不一致的情况下,也会产生轻度到中度的虚伪归因。在六次实验中,我们发现,当实施与态度相悖行为的人不是表明态度的人,而是与该人有共同社会关系的人(即跨人、关系内态度行为不一致;"关系型虚伪")时,韩国人(与来自美国的参与者相比)对态度相悖行为的虚伪性归因更多。具体来说,当孩子的行为与父母的观点相悖时(实验 1a 和 1b),或者当态度相悖的行为由亲密朋友的孩子实施时(实验 2),韩国人比美国人更倾向于认为孩子虚伪。实验 3-5 利用其他社会背景(如配偶关系)复制了实验 1-2 的结果。补充分析表明,美国人和韩国人在虚伪归因上的差异是由他们对人际关系中共同责任的文化差异所中介的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interdependent versus independent inconsistency: Cultural differences in how East Asian and Western people attribute hypocrisy.

Humans worldwide have long deplored hypocrisy, a concept that has been mentioned in texts dating back 100-1,000 years (e.g., the Analects of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, the Bible, and the Qur'an). However, what influences the extent of hypocrisy attribution or counts as hypocrisy may differ as a function of culture. Previous studies have shown that Westerners attribute greater hypocrisy for within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency than East Asians. Building on this, we predict that East Asians' (vs. Westerners') hypocrisy attribution is more heavily influenced by social relationships. Consistent with past research, this can lead to greater leniency. However, as we show, this can also result in the novel finding we present that attributions of mild-to-moderate hypocrisy are made even when no explicit within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency is present. Across six experiments, we found that Koreans (vs. participants from the United States) attributed more hypocrisy to attitude-contradicting behavior when the person enacting the behavior was not the person who stated the attitude but was someone who shared social bonds with that person (i.e., cross-person, within-relationship attitude-behavior inconsistency; "relational hypocrisy"). Specifically, Koreans attributed more hypocrisy than Americans when a child's behavior contradicted their parent's views (Experiments 1a and 1b) or when attitude-contradicting behavior was enacted by the child of a close friend (Experiment 2). Experiments 3-5 replicated the findings from Experiments 1-2 using additional social contexts (e.g., a spousal relationship). Supplementary analyses showed that differences in hypocrisy attribution between Americans and Koreans were mediated by cultural differences in their perceptions of shared responsibility within relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Does governmental corruption aid or hamper early moral development? Insights from the Dominican Republic and United States contexts. Different methods elicit different belief distributions. An associative-learning account of how infants learn about causal action in animates and inanimates: A critical reexamination of four classic studies. Variance (un)explained: Experimental conditions and temporal dependencies explain similarly small proportions of reaction time variability in linear models of perceptual and cognitive tasks. Assessing the effects of "native speaker" status on classic findings in speech research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1