理性-经验思维方式和理性群体间合作:群体间冲突/理性-经验思维方式和理性群体间合作的调节作用:群体间冲突的调节作用

IF 0.9 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Revista De Psicologia Social Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028
Vicente Peñarroja, M. Serrano, E. Gracia, A. Alacreu-Crespo, P. González, V. Martínez-Tur
{"title":"理性-经验思维方式和理性群体间合作:群体间冲突/理性-经验思维方式和理性群体间合作的调节作用:群体间冲突的调节作用","authors":"Vicente Peñarroja, M. Serrano, E. Gracia, A. Alacreu-Crespo, P. González, V. Martínez-Tur","doi":"10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Cooperative relationships between groups are difficult because of the high human capability to differentiate between in-group vs. out-group members. This obstacle exists even when the groups can obtain benefits for themselves from cooperation with other groups (rational cooperation). Based on an interactionist approach, the authors propose that personal (individual differences) and situational (conflicts) factors contribute to rational intergroup cooperation. The authors conducted a preliminary correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental investigation (Study 2). In Study 1, the authors examined, with 105 participants, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), measuring individual differences in information processing. In Study 2, the authors conducted an experimental investigation with 141 participants, testing the role of individual differences and conflict in intergroup rational cooperation. Findings of Study 1 showed that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. Results of Study 2 confirmed that the existence of both manipulated and perceived intergroup conflict reduces the magnitudes of the relationships between rational ability and rational cooperation. In addition, perceived intergroup conflict increased the magnitude of the links from experiential ability and experimental engagement to rational cooperation. Both individual differences and previous conflict have a role in predicting rational intergroup cooperation. According to the interactionist approach, personal and situational factors should be considered in the understanding of intergroup relationships.","PeriodicalId":42024,"journal":{"name":"Revista De Psicologia Social","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rational-experiential thinking style and rational intergroup cooperation: the moderating role of intergroup conflict / Estilos de pensamiento racional-experiencial y la cooperación intergrupal racional: el rol modulador del conflicto intergrupal\",\"authors\":\"Vicente Peñarroja, M. Serrano, E. Gracia, A. Alacreu-Crespo, P. González, V. Martínez-Tur\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Cooperative relationships between groups are difficult because of the high human capability to differentiate between in-group vs. out-group members. This obstacle exists even when the groups can obtain benefits for themselves from cooperation with other groups (rational cooperation). Based on an interactionist approach, the authors propose that personal (individual differences) and situational (conflicts) factors contribute to rational intergroup cooperation. The authors conducted a preliminary correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental investigation (Study 2). In Study 1, the authors examined, with 105 participants, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), measuring individual differences in information processing. In Study 2, the authors conducted an experimental investigation with 141 participants, testing the role of individual differences and conflict in intergroup rational cooperation. Findings of Study 1 showed that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. Results of Study 2 confirmed that the existence of both manipulated and perceived intergroup conflict reduces the magnitudes of the relationships between rational ability and rational cooperation. In addition, perceived intergroup conflict increased the magnitude of the links from experiential ability and experimental engagement to rational cooperation. Both individual differences and previous conflict have a role in predicting rational intergroup cooperation. According to the interactionist approach, personal and situational factors should be considered in the understanding of intergroup relationships.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42024,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista De Psicologia Social\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista De Psicologia Social\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista De Psicologia Social","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2016.1248028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要群体之间的合作关系是困难的,因为人类有很高的能力来区分群体内成员和群体外成员。即使群体能够从与其他群体的合作中获得利益(理性合作),这种障碍也存在。基于互动主义方法,作者提出个人(个体差异)和情境(冲突)因素有助于合理的群体间合作。作者进行了初步相关研究(研究1)和实验研究(研究2)。在研究1中,作者对105名参与者进行了西班牙版理性-经验量表(REI)的心理测量特性研究,测量了信息处理中的个体差异。在研究2中,作者对141名参与者进行了实验调查,测试了个体差异和冲突在群体间理性合作中的作用。研究1的结果表明,该量表具有足够的心理测量特性。研究2的结果证实,操纵和感知的群体间冲突的存在降低了理性能力和理性合作之间关系的大小。此外,感知到的群体间冲突增加了从经验能力和实验参与到理性合作的联系程度。个体差异和先前的冲突都对合理的群体间合作具有预测作用。根据互动主义方法,在理解群体间关系时应考虑个人因素和情境因素。
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
Rational-experiential thinking style and rational intergroup cooperation: the moderating role of intergroup conflict / Estilos de pensamiento racional-experiencial y la cooperación intergrupal racional: el rol modulador del conflicto intergrupal
Abstract Cooperative relationships between groups are difficult because of the high human capability to differentiate between in-group vs. out-group members. This obstacle exists even when the groups can obtain benefits for themselves from cooperation with other groups (rational cooperation). Based on an interactionist approach, the authors propose that personal (individual differences) and situational (conflicts) factors contribute to rational intergroup cooperation. The authors conducted a preliminary correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental investigation (Study 2). In Study 1, the authors examined, with 105 participants, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), measuring individual differences in information processing. In Study 2, the authors conducted an experimental investigation with 141 participants, testing the role of individual differences and conflict in intergroup rational cooperation. Findings of Study 1 showed that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. Results of Study 2 confirmed that the existence of both manipulated and perceived intergroup conflict reduces the magnitudes of the relationships between rational ability and rational cooperation. In addition, perceived intergroup conflict increased the magnitude of the links from experiential ability and experimental engagement to rational cooperation. Both individual differences and previous conflict have a role in predicting rational intergroup cooperation. According to the interactionist approach, personal and situational factors should be considered in the understanding of intergroup relationships.
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
Revista De Psicologia Social
Revista De Psicologia Social PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Where you come from matters: familial class background plays a greater role for status-related judgements in France than in the United States ( Tu procedencia importa: la clase social familiar de pertenencia tiene más peso en los juicios sobre el estatus social en Francia que en Estados Unidos ) Socio-economic inequalities of families and their differential impact on types of political participation in the new generation of 24 countries (Desigualdades socio-económicas familiares y su impacto diferencial sobre tipos de participación política de nuevas generaciones en 24 países) Introduction to the special issue: nuances of social class and socioeconomic status (Introducción a este monográfico: los matices del concepto de clase social y del nivel socioeconómico) Why do we vent our emotions and blame others during the coronavirus pandemic? The role of emotional clarity in the United States and South Korea (¿Por qué ventilamos nuestras emociones y culpabilizamos a otras personas durante la pandemia del coronavirus? El rol de la claridad emocional en los Estados Unidos y Corea del Sur) Enhancing social entrepreneurial intentions through outcome expectations, perceived social support and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the moderating effects of sustainability orientation (Mejora de las intenciones empresariales sociales a través de las expectativas de resultados, el apoyo social percibido, y la auto-eficacia empresarial social: los efectos moderadores de la orientación a la sostenibilidad)
×
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