Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2024-02-02
Abstract： The existing literature on fertility has predominantly focused on analyzing objective factors at macro and micro levels, such as gender, age, income, family relationships, economic situation, and social structure, that impact an individual’s fertility intentions. However, an often overlooked yet equally significant factor lies in an individual’s perception of the social climate surrounding fertility. This factor encompasses attitudes and behaviors related to fertility displayed by similar others. This article presents five studies from a social cognitive perspective aimed at addressing the following questions: (1) How do individuals perceive the fertility attitudes and behaviors of others? (2) To what extent and in what manner does this perception influence an individual’s own fertility intentions? (3) How can we explain this relationship?
This paper presents a comprehensive investigation comprising five studies that focus on individuals born between 1995 and 2005. In Studies 2a, 2b, and 3, we specifically targeted childless individuals. The key variables under examination included perceptions of fertility attitudes, operationalized as individuals’ judgments of the desired family size; perceptions of fertility behaviors, proxied by individuals’ judgments of the magnitude of change in China’s total fertility rate from 2021 to 2022; and fertility intentions, measured using a scale developed by the researchers. Study 1 involved a cross-sectional survey with 904 participants, of which 735 had never given birth. The primary aim of Study 1 was to gain initial insights into how individuals perceive the attitudes/behaviors of others and how these perceptions relate to their own fertility intentions. Studies 2a and 2b utilized experimental designs to establish a causal relationship between the perception of others’ fertility attitudes/behaviors and one’s own fertility intentions. In contrast, Study 3, a three-round longitudinal survey, sought to investigate whether fertility efficacy and perceived responsibility could explain the observed relationships. Lastly, Study 4 represents a single-paper meta-analysis that focuses on effect sizes for the key findings derived from the studies in this paper.
The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) Childless participants consistently displayed a tendency to underestimate others’ fertility attitudes/behaviors, whereas participants who had given birth in Study 1 exhibited an overly optimistic view of others’ fertility attitudes/behaviors. (2) The underestimation of others’ fertility attitudes/behaviors had a consistent suppressive effect on participants’ own fertility intentions. (3) Overly pessimistic views of others’ fertility attitudes/behaviors significantly reduced participants’ fertility efficacy in successfully pursuing fertility, as well as their perception of fertility as a family and social responsibility. Both of these factors, in turn, contributed to a reduction in fertility intentions, with the effect of fertility efficacy being more pronounced. (4) Notably, all key findings exhibited effect sizes ranging from small to moderate, highlighting the nuanced nature of these relationships.
The above findings have significant theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, the results suggest that perceptions of the social climate regarding fertility play a crucial role in an individual’s fertility decisions. Consequently, solely focusing on objective factors may not yield a comprehensive understanding of the intricate processes influencing fertility decisions, thereby bridging a gap in the existing literature. Secondly, the findings imply that a social norms approach can effectively address biased perceptions of others’ attitudes/behaviors toward fertility. By doing so, this approach contributes to bolstering fertility intentions, presenting a valuable complement to current policies that primarily emphasize economic factors.
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The altruistic punishment is proposed as an important mechanism for the existence of social norms. The motives for punishing altruistically, however, are not entirely altruistic from the individual perspective. In addition to maintaining the principle of fairness, the pursuit of a good reputation, the aversion of potential losses, or the elimination of negative emotions also drive, to varying degrees, altruistic punishment. In addition, the sensitivity to the amount and form of sanction costs also shows that strategic motivations based on the cost-benefit principle play a significant role in driving altruistic punishment. Further exploration of the interaction between different motivations in the implementation of altruistic punishment is an important issue that deserves more attention in the future research.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Altruistic punishment means that people privately bear the cost to punish norm violators, although the punishment yields no material gain. The positive effects of altruistic punishment on cooperation and norm maintenance are well documented and the possible mechanisms underlying these effects have also been widely tested. However, an important issue remains underexplored: Does people’s social background influence their altruistic punitive behavior? If yes, how? This article uses four studies to test the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class, the psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship, as well as the boundary conditions. Study 1 used the Chinese general social survey(2013) released by the National Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China to examine the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class. We selected two items as the dependent variables of Study 1 (D13: employees reported environmental pollution at their own cost; D23: employees retaliated against their foreign boss who insulted China). After screening the samples, a total of 4921 (for D13) and 4864 (for D23) valid data were obtained, respectively. Study 2 was a real-life event-based survey with 450 participants. In Study 2, we further investigated the relationship between social class and altruistic punishment under two forms (direct vs. indirect punishment). Study 3 was a 2 (social class: low/high) × 2 (punishment cost: low/high) between-participants design, and the main purpose was to demonstrate that punishment cost may play a moderating role in the process of how social class affects altruistic punishment. Based on the survey data, Study 4 proposed a conditional process model with belief in a just world as a mediating variable and punishment cost as a moderator variable, hereby providing an explanatory framework for the impact of social class on altruistic punishment. Study 1 showed that after controlling for educational attainment and annual income, participants’ subjective social class significantly positively predicts their altruistic punishment. Study 2 demonstrated that the above results hold in direct punishment, but not in indirect punishment. The results of Study 3 showed that when the punishment cost increases, punitive behavior decreases overall, but the downward trend is more pronounced for lower-class participants. The results of Study 4 further demonstrated that social class affects altruistic punishment indirectly mainly through belief in a just world when punishment cost is low, whereas social class directly affects altruistic punishment when punishment cost is high. To sum up, we have found evidence that upper-class (vs. lower-class) individuals are more willing to engage in altruistic punishment in economic games and real-life contexts, implying that in a modern society increasingly stratified along class lines, people’s social background should not be ignored in the research of altruistic punishment. In addition, the results of this article also prove that on the one hand, altruistic punishment is at least partly a non-strategic sanction, because one force that drives people to punish is to protect their just belief, and on the other hand cost-benefit based considerations are not completely absent in altruistic punishment.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-06
Abstract：
Altruistic punishment means that people privately bear the cost to punish norm violators, although the punishment yields no material gain. The positive effects of altruistic punishment on cooperation and norm maintenance are well documented and the possible mechanisms underlying these effects have also been widely tested. However, an important issue remains underexplored: Does people’s social background influence their altruistic punitive behavior? If yes, how? This article uses four studies to test the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class, the psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship, as well as the boundary conditions.
Study 1 used the Chinese general social survey (2013) released by the National Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China to examine the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class. We selected two items as the dependent variables of Study 1 (D13: employees reported environmental pollution at their own cost; D23: employees retaliated against their foreign boss who insulted China). After screening the samples, a total of 4921 (for D13) and 4864 (for D23) valid data were obtained, respectively. Study 2 was a real-life event-based survey with 450 participants. In Study 2, we further investigated the relationship between social class and altruistic punishment under two forms (direct vs. indirect punishment). Study 3 was a 2 (social class: low/high) × 2 (punishment cost: low/high) between-participants design, and the main purpose was to demonstrate that punishment cost may play a moderating role in the process of how social class affects altruistic punishment. Based on the survey data, Study 4 proposed a conditional process model with belief in a just world as a mediating variable and punishment cost as a moderator variable, hereby providing a relatively complete explanatory framework for the impact of social class on altruistic punishment.
Study 1 showed that after controlling for educational level and annual income, participants’ subjective social class could significantly positively predict their altruistic punishment. Study 2 demonstrated that the above results hold in direct punishment, but not in indirect punishment. The results of Study 3 showed that when the punishment cost increases, punitive behavior decreases overall, but the downward trend is more pronounced for lower-class participants. The results of Study 4 further demonstrated that social class affects altruistic punishment indirectly mainly through belief in a just world when punishment cost is low, whereas social class directly affects altruistic punishment when punishment cost is high.
To sum up, we have found evidence that high social class (vs. low social class) individuals are more willing to engage in altruistic punishment in economic games and real-life contexts, implying that in an increasingly stratified modern society, people’s social background should not be ignored in the research of altruistic punishment. In addition, the results of this article also prove that on the one hand, altruistic punishment is at least partly a non-strategic sanction, because one force that drives people to punish is to protect their just belief, and on the other hand cost-benefit based considerations are not completely absent in altruistic punishment.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2021-11-24
Abstract： Punishment decisions might be guided by the norm of punishment, that is, people will implement their own punishment according to perceived prevalence of punishment in a similar social midst. However, there may be differences between an individual’s perception of norms and actual norms, which is called normative misperception. This article uses four experiments to explore the existence, the direction, and the cause of the normative misperception in third-party punishment, as well as its influence on people’s own punitive behaviors. In Experiment 1, 449 participants were randomized in a four group factorial design (punishing before estimating, estimating before punishing, punishing only, and estimating only). Experiment 1 consisted of 6 rounds of dictator game, in which participants made punishment decisions for 6 offers and/or estimated the average punishment level of other participants in each offer. Experiment 2 aimed to establish the causal relationship between the normative misperception and the punishment by directly manipulating the normative misperception. Specifically, 134 participants were randomly divided into the overestimation group and underestimation group. After receiving the feedback, participants made punishment decision for an unfair offer and estimated the level of punishment of others in this offer. The purpose of Experiment 3 was to test the model of belief in a just world (BJW)-normative misperception-punishment, as well as the moderating effect of perceived social distance (PSD), with a within-participants design involving 164 participants. The procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that we measured participants’ BJW and PSD before and after the game, respectively. In Experiment 4, we manipulated participants’ BJW through reading materials to test the causal relationship between BJW and the normative misperception. The results of Experiment 1 showed that there is an underestimated normative misperception in third-party punishment, which leads to a lower level of punishment. Experiment 2 proved that there exists a causal relationship between the normative misperception and punishment by directly manipulating the independent variables. Experiment 3 demonstrated that BJW might be an underlying cause of the normative misperception, while PSD moderates the effect of BJW on the normative misperception. Finally, Experiment 4 showed the causal relationship between BJW and the normative misperception, providing additional evidence to the results of Experiment 3. To sum up, we have found evidence of normative misperception in third-party punishment through 4 experiments. This underestimated misperception might be affected by dual reference points: BJW (internal) and PSD (external). It also shows to a certain extent that third-party punishment is a norm-maintaining behavior rather than a gain-based strategic behavior. "
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2020-08-08
Abstract： The altruistic punishment is proposed as an important mechanism for the existence of social norms. The motives for punishing altruistically, however, are not entirely altruistic from the individual perspective. In addition to maintaining the principle of fairness, the pursuit of a good reputation, the aversion of potential losses, or the elimination of negative emotions also drive, to varying degrees, altruistic punishment. In addition, the sensitivity to the amount and form of sanction costs also shows that strategic motivations based on the cost-benefit principle play a significant role in driving altruistic punishment. Further exploration of the interaction between different motivations in the implementation of altruistic punishment is an important issue that deserves more attention in the future research.
Subjects: Biology >> Zoology submitted time 2018-12-25 Cooperative journals: 《动物营养学报》
Abstract：哺乳动物肠道中存在多种防御机制保护机体免受病原体的侵害，同时预防自身肠道菌群的影响。肠道分泌的黏液是多种防御机制中的第一道防线。黏液层通过自身的持续性分泌将细菌与上皮细胞分离并促进细菌的清除，从而减少肠道炎症和肠源性感染的发生。近期研究发现，致病微生物进化出了绕过这种黏液保护系统的机制。本文通过对肠道黏液屏障的基本特性及其在建立肠道共生菌群、防御致病微生物移植和入侵中发挥的作用等方面研究进展的综述，为更好地理解黏液屏障在维持肠道健康方面的作用提供借鉴。
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment