什么是“去人性化”（dehumanization）？
What is dehumanization?
去人性化是把他人看作缺乏完整心智或人性的过程，可分工具化（当作物）和动物化（当作兽）。它是偏见、歧视乃至暴力的心理前奏，常通过否认同类的感受或能动能力实现。
Dehumanization is treating others as lacking full humanity or mind, split into mechanization (as objects) and animalization (as beasts). It precedes prejudice, discrimination and violence, often by denying others' capacity to experience or to act as agents.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#去人性化 #偏见 #暴力
什么是“心智感知”（mind perception）？
What is 'mind perception'?
心智感知指我们判断某对象（人、动物、机器人、自然）拥有多少心智——分为感受能力（感受痛苦/愉悦）和能动能力（意图/自控）。它解释了为何我们会对宠物、AI 甚至自然灾害“赋灵”，也是去人性化的反过程。
Mind perception is judging how much mind an entity has, split into capacity for experience (feeling pain/pleasure) and agency (intent/self-control). It explains why we animate pets, AI or even nature, and is the reverse of dehumanization.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#心智感知 #去人性化 #道德
成年人的“心智化”（mentalizing）指什么能力？
What ability does adult 'mentalizing' refer to?
心智化是推断自己与他人信念、意图和情绪的能力，依赖内侧前额叶、颞顶联合区等网络。它让我们理解别人的行为“为何如此”，也是共情、沟通与社会合作的基础。
Mentalizing is the ability to infer others' and our own beliefs, intentions and emotions, relying on networks including medial prefrontal and temporoparietal junction. It lets us grasp why someone acted as they did and underpins empathy, communication and cooperation.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#心智化 #心理理论 #社会脑
社会认知的脑基础主要涉及哪些区域？
Which brain regions mainly support social cognition?
关键节点包括内侧前额叶（自我与他人表征）、颞顶联合区（视角采择）、梭状回（面孔）与杏仁核（社会威胁评估）。它们组成灵活的网络，而非单一“社会脑”模块。
Key hubs include medial prefrontal cortex (self/other representation), temporoparietal junction (perspective-taking), fusiform face area and amygdala (social-threat evaluation). They form a flexible network rather than one 'social brain' module.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#社会脑 #网络 #神经基础
什么是“基本归因错误”（fundamental attribution error）？
What is the fundamental attribution error?
基本归因错误指解释他人行为时过度归因于其性格，而低估情境因素，比如看到人摔倒就怪其笨而非地面滑。自己出错时却更强调情境，这叫行动者-观察者差异。它揭示我们评价自己与他人的双重标准。
The fundamental attribution error is over-explaining others' acts by personality and under-weighting situation, like blaming a faller for clumsiness not the slippery floor. For our own errors we cite situation more, the actor-observer difference. It reveals a double standard for self and others.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#基本归因错误 #归因 #情境
我们为什么常以为自己会“读心”却读错？
Why do we think we can 'read minds' yet often get it wrong?
我们习惯用有限的线索（表情、语气）快速推断他人想法，并过度自信。其实他人内心常与我们猜测不同，所谓读心多是投射而非精确解码，尤其在情绪高强度时更易误判。
We quickly infer others' thoughts from sparse cues (faces, tone) and are overconfident. Others' inner states often differ from our guesses; 'mind reading' is usually projection, not precise decoding, and worsens under high emotion.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#读心错觉 #投射 #元认知
为什么人们解释他人行为时偏重性格、解释自己的行为时偏重情境?这种不对称现象在归因研究中如何命名?
Why do people lean on personality when explaining others’ behavior yet stress circumstances when explaining their own, and how is this asymmetry labeled in attribution research?
这一不对称被称为行动者—观察者偏差。观察者的视线聚焦于行为者本人,知觉显著性让人格信息比背景更醒目;而行动者拥有当时情境的大量细节,于是把原因推向外部条件。语言习惯与文化规范会进一步放大这条归因鸿沟。
The asymmetry is known as the actor–observer bias. An observer’s gaze settles on the actor, and perceptual salience makes personal qualities stand out against the background; actors, who hold rich detail about the situation at hand, push causes outward onto circumstances. Linguistic habits and cultural norms widen this attributional gap further.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：著录含书名，但缺版次 / 出版社 / 年份中的一部分，需编辑补全后才能做独立比对。
Jones 与 Nisbett 1972 年的归因专著,及 Malle 2006 年发表于《心理学公报》的行动者—观察者不对称元分析(132卷6期,895-919页)
Jones & Nisbett (1972) attribution monograph; Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 895-919.
#归因偏差 #知觉显著性
内隐联想测验声称捕捉到的究竟是什么?围绕它的分数解读,方法学界提出了哪些主要质疑?
What does the Implicit Association Test claim to capture, and what principal objections has the methods community raised against interpreting its scores?
IAT 借助相容与不相容配对之间反应时的差值来推断自动化联结强度,被广泛用于考察刻板印象与内隐态度。质疑集中于三点:其分数与外显态度相关偏弱且受任务顺序影响,个体内的重测稳定性有限,并且它难以区分个人真实信念与环境中弥漫的社会知识。不少研究者据此主张把它当作情境敏感的指标,而非稳定的个体特质来使用。
The IAT infers automatic associative strength from response-time gaps between compatible and incompatible pairings and is widely deployed to probe stereotypes and implicit attitudes. Objections cluster around three points: scores correlate weakly with explicit attitudes and shift with task order, within-person retest stability is limited, and the measure struggles to separate private belief from socially pervasive knowledge. Many researchers accordingly urge treating it as a context-sensitive index rather than a fixed trait.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：著录含书名，但缺版次 / 出版社 / 年份中的一部分，需编辑补全后才能做独立比对。
Greenwald 等 1998 年发表于《人格与社会心理学杂志》的 IAT 方法论文,Gawronski 2019 年的方法学评述
Greenwald et al. (1998), IAT methods paper in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Gawronski (2019) methodological review
#内隐态度 #反应时范式
评价他人行为时我们偏重特质原因,解释自己行为时却强调处境压力——罗斯凭什么把这种不对称称作“基本”归因错误?
We lean on dispositional causes when judging others' behavior yet stress situational pressure when explaining our own—on what grounds did Ross label this asymmetry the fundamental attribution error?
罗斯认为这个偏差之所以“基本”,是因为它扎根于知觉层面的显著度差异:行动者占据观察者的注意中心,背景自动退居为框架,于是观察者系统性地把行为记在特质头上。琼斯与哈里斯早在1967年就用实验表明,即便明确告知文章立场系被指派,读者仍然高估作者的真实态度。这一不对称还顺带解释了行动者-观察者效应,以及它在不同文化中表现出的强弱差别。
Ross deemed the error fundamental because it grows out of perceptual salience: the actor occupies the center of the observer's attention while the background recedes into framing, so observers systematically charge behavior to dispositions. Jones and Harris had shown experimentally back in 1967 that readers overestimated writers' true attitudes even after being told the essay stance was assigned. The same asymmetry also accounts for the actor-observer effect and for its varying strength across cultures.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：著录含书名，但缺版次 / 出版社 / 年份中的一部分，需编辑补全后才能做独立比对。
Ross(1977),《直觉心理学家及其短处:归因过程中的歪曲》,《实验社会心理学进展》第10卷
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10.
#基本归因错误 #知觉显著性
什么是“晕轮效应”（halo effect）？
What is the halo effect?
晕轮效应指对某人一个正面特质（如长相好看）的好印象，会“溢出”到对其能力、品格等其他方面的评价。它让我们以偏概全，形成整体光环。招聘与教学评分中它都可能悄悄扭曲判断。
The halo effect is that a good impression of one trait, like attractiveness, spills over to judgments of ability or character. It makes us generalize from a part to a glowing whole. It can quietly bias hiring and teaching ratings.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#晕轮效应 #印象 #偏差
“自我服务偏差”（self-serving bias）是什么？
What is the self-serving bias?
自我服务偏差指人把成功归于自己能力、把失败推给外部因素，以维护自尊。考试好是“我聪明”，考差是“题目偏”。它普遍存在于健康人群，适度有益自信，过度则阻碍反省。
The self-serving bias is crediting success to oneself and blaming failure on outside factors, to protect self-esteem. A good grade is my smarts, a bad one is the unfair test. Common in healthy people, it helps confidence in moderation but blocks reflection in excess.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#自我服务偏差 #自尊 #归因
“情感共情”和“认知共情”是一回事吗？
Are 'affective' and 'cognitive' empathy the same thing?
不是。情感共情是感受他人情绪（被对方感染），认知共情是理解他人视角（知道对方怎么想）。二者神经基础不同，且可分离——有人很会读人却无动于衷，也有人易伤感却读不懂人。
No. Affective empathy is feeling what others feel (emotional contagion); cognitive empathy is understanding their perspective (knowing what they think). They have different neural bases and can dissociate—some read people well but feel little, others feel easily yet misread.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-08-23 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
戴维·迈尔斯,《社会心理学》第11版中译,人民邮电出版社,2016
D. Myers, Social Psychology, 11th ed., Chinese ed., Posts & Telecom Press, 2016
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（按标题+
#共情 #区分 #社会认知