什么是“去个性化”？
What is deindividuation?
去个性化指个体在群体中因身份隐匿而削弱自我约束、责任感下降，更易做出平日不会做的冲动或攻击行为。网络匿名环境常加剧这一现象。
Deindividuation is when being part of a crowd and anonymous lowers self-restraint and responsibility, making impulsive or aggressive acts more likely. Online anonymity often intensifies the effect.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#去个性化 #匿名 #群体
最小群体范式为什么能证明内群偏好不需要任何利益冲突？
Why does the minimal group paradigm show in-group favouritism needs no conflict of interest?
塔杰费尔用抛硬币或对抽象画的偏好等毫无意义的标准把被试分成两组，成员彼此匿名、没有互动也没有实际利益关联，随后请他们分配点数。结果被试系统性地偏向本组成员，甚至在有更高绝对收益的方案面前，仍宁愿选择让本组相对领先的分配。这说明单纯的分类就足以引发群际区分，社会认同理论据此提出人们通过让内群优于外群来获得积极的自我评价。这一发现把偏见的来源从资源竞争扩展到认同需求本身。
Tajfel divided participants by meaningless criteria such as a coin toss or a preference between abstract paintings, keeping members anonymous with no interaction and no material stake, then asked them to allocate points. Participants systematically favoured their own group and often preferred allocations that maximised the in-group's relative advantage over ones giving their group more in absolute terms. Mere categorisation is therefore enough to generate intergroup differentiation, and social identity theory accounts for it by arguing people derive positive self-evaluation from seeing their in-group as superior. The finding extended the roots of prejudice from resource competition to identity needs themselves.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Tajfel（1971）《European Journal of Social Psychology》社会分类与群际行为；Tajfel 与 Turner（1979）社会认同理论论文
Tajfel et al. (1971), European Journal of Social Psychology, Social categorization and intergroup behaviour; Tajfel and Turner (1979), An integrative theory of intergroup conflict
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 CROSSREF 标识 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202：Social categorizatio
#最小群体范式 #社会认同理论 #内群偏好
米尔格拉姆服从实验的档案研究带来了哪些新的解读？
What new interpretations have archival studies brought to Milgram's obedience experiments?
原始报告强调普通人在权威指令下会施加看似危险的电击，服从率之高震动了学界。研究者后来查阅耶鲁大学档案中的录音与被试事后问卷，发现相当比例的被试怀疑电击是假的，而怀疑程度与服从行为相关；实验者的说服话术也远比程序说明中的四句标准提示灵活多变。这些发现并未否认情境压力的作用，但把解释重心从盲目服从转向了对情境定义的接受、对科学事业的认同以及被试与实验者之间的互动过程。
The original reports emphasised that ordinary people would deliver apparently dangerous shocks under an authority's instruction, and the high obedience rates shocked the field. Researchers later examined recordings and post-experiment questionnaires in the Yale archives and found a substantial share of participants doubted the shocks were real, with that scepticism correlating with compliance, while the experimenter's prods were far more improvised than the four standard lines described in the procedure. These findings do not deny the power of the situation, but they shift the explanation from blind obedience toward acceptance of the situation's definition, identification with the scientific enterprise, and the interactive dynamics between participant and experimenter.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Milgram（1963）《Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology》；Perry《Behind the Shock Machine》（2013）；Haslam 与 Reicher（2012）《PLOS Biology》
Milgram (1963), Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; Perry, Behind the Shock Machine (2013); Haslam and Reicher (2012), PLOS Biology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ARCHIVE 标识 behindshockmachi0000perr：Behind the shock mac
#服从实验 #档案研究 #情境定义
接触假说要满足哪些条件才能真正减少偏见？
What conditions must contact satisfy to genuinely reduce prejudice?
奥尔波特提出四个促进条件：群体间地位平等、共同追求的目标、合作而非竞争的互动结构，以及权威或制度的明确支持。佩蒂格鲁与特罗普的大规模元分析纳入五百多项研究，确认接触与偏见降低存在稳定的负相关，满足奥尔波特条件时效应更强，但即使不完全满足也有一定效果。后续研究还发现，跨群体友谊、共情与减少焦虑是主要中介机制，而通过媒体或想象的间接接触也能产生较弱的类似效果。需要注意的是因果方向存在选择效应，偏见较低的人更可能主动寻求接触。
Allport specified four facilitating conditions: equal status between groups, common goals, cooperative rather than competitive interaction, and explicit support from authorities or institutions. Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis of more than five hundred studies confirmed a robust negative association between contact and prejudice, stronger when Allport's conditions are met yet still present when they are not fully satisfied. Later work identified cross-group friendship, empathy, and reduced anxiety as the main mediators, and found weaker but real effects for indirect contact through media or imagined encounters. A caveat is selection: less prejudiced people are more likely to seek contact in the first place, complicating causal inference.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Allport《The Nature of Prejudice》（1954）；Pettigrew 与 Tropp（2006）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》接触理论元分析
Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (1954); Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
#接触假说 #偏见削减 #元分析
内隐联想测验能预测现实中的歧视行为吗？
Can the Implicit Association Test predict real-world discriminatory behaviour?
该测验通过比较相容与不相容配对条件下的反应时差异，测量概念与评价之间的自动联结强度，被广泛用于研究内隐偏见。元分析发现，测验分数与外显行为指标的相关通常较弱，重测信度也低于常规人格量表，因此不适合用于评估或筛选个体。但在群体与区域层面，汇总的测验分数与一些社会结果指标存在关联。较为稳妥的定位是把它当作研究自动化社会认知的实验工具，而不是判定某人是否会歧视他人的诊断手段。
The test infers the strength of automatic associations between concepts and evaluations from response-time differences between congruent and incongruent pairings, and it is widely used to study implicit bias. Meta-analyses find its scores correlate only weakly with overt behavioural measures and that test-retest reliability is lower than for conventional personality scales, so it is unsuitable for evaluating or screening individuals. At group or regional level, aggregated scores do track some social outcomes. The defensible position is to treat it as a laboratory tool for studying automatic social cognition rather than a diagnostic of whether a given person will discriminate.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Greenwald、McGhee 与 Schwartz（1998）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》；Oswald 等（2013）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》IAT 预测效度元分析
Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz (1998), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Oswald et al. (2013), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, meta-analysis of IAT predictive validity
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464（本条出处含多部著作，按段登记，
#内隐联想测验 #内隐偏见 #预测效度
什么是认知失调？
What is cognitive dissonance?
费斯汀格提出，当人的行为与信念冲突时会产生不舒服的心理紧张，叫认知失调。为减轻不适，人会改态度、改行为或找理由。例如花钱买了不喜欢的物品后，反而会更说服自己它值得。
Festinger proposed that when behavior conflicts with beliefs, people feel uncomfortable mental tension called cognitive dissonance. To reduce it, they change attitudes, actions, or find justifications. For example, after buying something they dislike, people may convince themselves it was worth it.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Festinger 1957 理论
Festinger 1957 theory
#认知失调 #态度 #自我合理化
什么是“群体思维”？
What is groupthink?
群体思维是贾尼斯提出的现象：追求团队和谐与一致会使成员压制异议、忽视风险，导致糟糕决策。它常见于封闭、高压、凝聚力强的决策群体。
Groupthink, described by Janis, occurs when the drive for harmony and unanimity leads members to suppress dissent and ignore risks, producing poor decisions. It is common in closed, high-pressure, highly cohesive decision groups.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#群体思维 #决策 #贾尼斯
人的道德判断是天生固定的吗？
Is moral judgment fixed from birth?
科尔伯格通过“海因茨偷药”之类的两难故事发现，道德推理大致经历三个水平：前习俗水平（避罚和利己）、习俗水平（遵守规则和他人期望）、后习俗水平（依据内化的普遍原则）。大多数人停留在习俗水平。后续研究提醒我们，这只是道德推理的发展路径，不等于实际行为，而且女性的关爱取向（吉尔根）可能被早期模型低估。
Kohlberg's Heinz dilemma and similar stories suggest moral reasoning develops through three levels: preconventional (avoiding punishment, self-interest), conventional (following rules and others' expectations), and postconventional (acting on internalized universal principles). Most people stay at the conventional level. Later work notes this maps reasoning, not necessarily behavior, and that care-based concerns (Gilligan) were underweighted in the original model.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-03 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
《心理学与生活》(津巴多)（道德发展章）
Psychology and Life (Zimbardo), moral development
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 2 DOUBAN ISBN 标识 9787115371775（按标识回读: 心理学与生活（第19版）（原作名 Psy
#科尔伯格 #道德发展 #两难
刻板印象威胁的研究结论为何在重复检验中变得更加谨慎？
Why have conclusions about stereotype threat become more cautious under replication scrutiny?
斯蒂尔与阿伦森最初发现，当测验被描述为诊断能力且提示了群体身份时，处于负面刻板印象下的被试成绩下降，机制被解释为担忧证实刻板印象所引发的额外认知负荷与焦虑。近年来的多实验室重复研究与考虑发表偏差的元分析显示，效应量比早期报告小得多，在部分场景中不显著，而干预效果在实地随机试验中也不稳定。目前较稳妥的表述是：情境线索确实能影响表现，但效应依赖具体人群、任务难度与身份显著性，不能简单套用于解释群体间的整体成绩差距。
Steele and Aronson originally found that when a test was framed as diagnostic of ability and group identity was made salient, members of negatively stereotyped groups performed worse, explained by the extra cognitive load and anxiety of fearing one would confirm the stereotype. Multi-lab replications and meta-analyses adjusting for publication bias now report much smaller effects, non-significant in some settings, and field randomised trials of interventions show inconsistent benefits. The defensible summary is that situational cues can influence performance, but the effect depends on the specific population, task difficulty, and identity salience, and cannot be applied wholesale to explain group-level achievement gaps.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
Steele 与 Aronson（1995）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》；Flore 与 Wicherts（2015）《Journal of School Psychology》元分析
Steele and Aronson (1995), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Flore and Wicherts (2015), Journal of School Psychology, meta-analysis
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797 · 核验依据 2 Crossref DOI 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002
#刻板印象威胁 #重复研究 #效应量
内隐态度和外显态度有什么不同？
How do implicit and explicit attitudes differ?
外显态度是人们能意识并报告的对某群体的看法，内隐态度则是无意识、自动激活的偏好或偏见。两者常不一致，需用内隐联想测验测量。它解释了“言行不一”的偏见来源。
Explicit attitudes are conscious, reportable views toward a group, while implicit attitudes are unconscious, automatically activated preferences or biases. They often disagree and require tests like the Implicit Association Test. This explains biased 'say-do' gaps.
难度 专业 · 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+
#内隐态度 #外显态度 #偏见
对应偏差为什么这么难克服？即使知道对方没有选择余地也一样？
Why is correspondence bias so hard to overcome, even when we know the person had no choice?
琼斯与哈里斯让被试阅读支持或反对某位领导人的短文，并明确告知作者是被指定立场的，被试仍推断文章观点反映了作者的真实态度。这种把行为直接对应到内在特质、低估情境约束的倾向被称为对应偏差或基本归因错误。原因包括行为在知觉上比情境更显著、对情境力量的估计需要额外认知努力，以及人们默认他人的行为出自选择。研究还发现，强调情境信息、要求被试解释他人为何不得不如此，或让其亲身处于同一角色，能部分削弱该偏差。
Jones and Harris had participants read essays for or against a leader while being told explicitly that the writer's position had been assigned, yet participants still inferred the essay reflected the writer's true attitude. This tendency to map behaviour directly onto inner traits while discounting situational constraints is called correspondence bias or the fundamental attribution error. Contributing factors include the perceptual salience of the actor relative to the situation, the extra cognitive effort needed to weigh situational force, and a default assumption that behaviour is chosen. Highlighting situational information, asking participants to explain why the person had no alternative, or placing them in the same role can partly reduce the bias.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
Jones 与 Harris（1967）《Journal of Experimental Social Psychology》；Gilbert 与 Malone（1995）《Psychological Bulletin》对应偏差综述
Jones and Harris (1967), Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; Gilbert and Malone (1995), Psychological Bulletin, The correspondence bias
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0（复合著录按段核验：本标识只担 · 核验依据 2 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21（复合著录按段核验：本标识只担保第
#对应偏差 #基本归因错误 #归因过程
什么是晕轮效应？
What is the halo effect?
晕轮效应指对一个人某一特质的良好印象，会扩散到对其整体和其他特质的评价，比如好看的人也被视为更聪明。它是认知上的“以偏概全”。在招聘和审判中需特别注意。
The halo effect is when a good impression of one trait spreads to overall and other-trait judgments of a person, such as attractive people being seen as smarter. It is a cognitive 'generalizing from a part.' It needs attention in hiring and judgments.
难度 专业 · 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
什么是基本归因错误？
What is the fundamental attribution error?
基本归因错误指人们在解释他人行为时，过度归因于性格而忽略情境因素。比如把别人迟到归为“不靠谱”而非堵车。它在强调个人主义的文化中更明显。
The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to explain others' behavior by personality while overlooking situational factors, such as calling someone late 'unreliable' rather than noting traffic. It is stronger in individualistic cultures.
难度 专业 · 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+
#基本归因错误 #归因 #情境
群体讨论为什么常常让立场更加极端而不是趋向中庸？
Why does group discussion often push positions to extremes rather than toward the middle?
群体极化的两个主要机制是说服性论证与社会比较：讨论中成员听到大量支持既有倾向的新论据，从而强化原有立场；同时人们希望被看作是群体价值的合格代表，倾向把观点表述得比平均水平更鲜明。当群体在成员构成上本就同质，接触到的反面论据稀少，极化更明显。桑斯坦把这一机制用于分析同质化的网络社群与陪审团评议，指出隔离的信息环境会系统性放大初始倾向。
Group polarisation rests on two mechanisms: persuasive arguments, as members hear many new reasons supporting the prevailing leaning and so strengthen their own, and social comparison, as people want to be seen as good representatives of group values and therefore state positions somewhat more sharply than the average. Polarisation is strongest when the group is already homogeneous so that counterarguments are scarce. Sunstein applied the mechanism to homogeneous online communities and jury deliberation, arguing that segregated information environments systematically amplify initial tendencies.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Myers 与 Lamm（1976）《Psychological Bulletin》群体极化现象；Sunstein《Going to Extremes》（2009）
Myers and Lamm (1976), Psychological Bulletin, The group polarization phenomenon; Sunstein, Going to Extremes (2009)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL1952254W：Going to extremes（首版 20
#群体极化 #说服性论证 #社会比较
Tajfel 的“社会认同理论”如何解释群际偏见？
How does Tajfel's social identity theory explain intergroup bias?
社会认同理论认为个体通过所属群体获得自我价值，并倾向于对内群体偏好、对外群体贬低以提升自尊。Tajfel 与 Turner 于 1979 年提出，并通过“最小群体范式”实验证明，仅基于随意分类就能引发偏袒行为。
Social identity theory holds that people derive self-worth from group membership and favor the in-group over out-groups to boost self-esteem. Tajfel and Turner proposed it in 1979 and, using the minimal group paradigm, showed that arbitrary categorization alone can produce favoritism.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Tajfel 与 Turner 1979 年论文（载 The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations）；Myers《社会心理学》
Tajfel & Turner (1979) in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations; Myers, Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（首版 1
#社会认同理论 #内群体偏袒 #最小群体范式
什么是斯坦福监狱实验？
What was the Stanford prison experiment?
1971年津巴多把大学生随机分为“狱警”和“囚犯”，模拟监狱环境，结果很快出现了虐待与顺从的角色行为，实验被迫提前终止。它想说明情境和角色能强烈影响行为，但后来也因伦理和方法问题受到批评。它提醒我们环境和制度对人的塑造力。
In 1971 Zimbardo randomly assigned students to 'guard' and 'prisoner' roles in a mock prison; abusive and submissive behaviors emerged quickly, and the study was stopped early. It aimed to show that situations and roles strongly shape behavior, though later criticized for ethics and method. It reminds us how environments and systems shape people.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Zimbardo 1971 实验
Zimbardo 1971 experiment
#斯坦福 #角色 #情境
斯坦福监狱实验的方法学问题为什么足以推翻它的核心结论？
Why do the methodological problems of the Stanford Prison Experiment undercut its central conclusion?
该研究被长期引用来说明角色与情境足以让普通人变得残酷。后来公开的原始录音与档案显示，研究者对狱警进行了明确的态度指导，鼓励制造心理压力；部分参与者事后承认在表演角色，招募广告本身也筛选出对监狱生活感兴趣的人群，此外研究没有对照组，观察者深度介入且兼任典狱长。因此实验更接近一次带有需求特征的角色扮演演示，而非能推断因果的对照研究，其结论应被视为提出假设而非确证。
The study has long been cited to show that roles and situations alone can turn ordinary people cruel. Released tapes and archives later revealed that the researchers explicitly coached guards and encouraged them to create psychological pressure, some participants admitted afterwards to performing a role, the recruitment advertisement itself selected people interested in prison life, and there was no control group while the lead investigator both observed and acted as prison superintendent. The exercise therefore resembles a demonstration of role-play under strong demand characteristics rather than a controlled study licensing causal inference, and its conclusions should be treated as hypothesis-generating.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
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。
Haney、Banks 与 Zimbardo（1973）《International Journal of Criminology and Penology》；Le Texier（2019）《American Psychologist》
Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973), International Journal of Criminology and Penology; Le Texier (2019), American Psychologist
#斯坦福监狱实验 #需求特征 #研究效度
为什么报酬越少反而越容易改变态度？认知失调实验说明了什么？
Why does a smaller payment produce more attitude change, and what did the cognitive dissonance experiment show?
费斯廷格与卡尔史密斯让被试完成枯燥任务，再请他们向下一位参与者说这项任务很有趣，一组获得一美元，另一组获得二十美元。结果拿一美元的人事后对任务的评价明显更正面，因为二十美元提供了充足的外部理由，无需改变私下看法；而一美元不足以解释自己的言行，认知不一致带来的不适促使他们调整态度以自圆其说。这一范式确立了失调理论的核心预测，也提示激励设计中过高的外部报酬可能削弱内在态度的转变。
Festinger and Carlsmith had participants perform a tedious task and then tell the next participant it was interesting, paying one group one dollar and the other twenty. Those paid a dollar afterwards rated the task as significantly more enjoyable, because twenty dollars supplied an ample external justification that left private opinion untouched, whereas one dollar could not explain their own behaviour and the resulting discomfort pushed them to adjust their attitude to restore consistency. The paradigm established dissonance theory's core prediction and warns that overly generous external rewards can undercut genuine internal attitude change.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Festinger 与 Carlsmith（1959）《Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology》；Festinger《A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance》（1957）
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL4788697W：A Theory of Cognitive D
#认知失调 #外部理由 #态度改变
什么是“自我实现预言”？
What is a self-fulfilling prophecy?
自我实现预言指一个错误期望引发的行为最终使期望成真，例如老师对学生的高期望真的提升了其成绩（皮格马利翁效应）。它说明预期能塑造现实。
A self-fulfilling prophecy is when a false expectation triggers behaviors that make the expectation come true, such as a teacher's high expectations actually raising students' achievement (the Pygmalion effect). It shows that expectations can shape reality.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#自我实现预言 #期望 #皮格马利翁
在Festinger和Carlsmith的经典实验中,为什么只拿1美元就把枯燥任务夸得有趣的被试,事后反而比拿20美元的更真心觉得任务有趣?
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic experiment, why did participants paid only $1 to describe a dull task as fun end up liking it more sincerely than those paid $20?
关键在于理由不足。20美元为当众说违心话提供了充分的外部理由,认知之间没有冲突,态度照旧;1美元远远不够解释这种言行不一,它与「我不是随意骗人的人」的自我认知失衡,个体只能把对任务的真实态度向正面拉来消解失调。由内在压力促成的态度改变,因此比金钱买来的更深刻也更持久。
The key is insufficient justification. Twenty dollars fully excuses publicly vouching for a boring task, so cognitions stay consistent and attitudes stay put. One dollar cannot cover that mismatch between words and belief, which clashes with seeing oneself as no casual liar, so the person resolves the tension by pulling the private attitude toward genuinely enjoying the task. Change driven by this inner pressure runs deeper and lasts longer than bought compliance.
难度 专业 · 适合 高中(15-18)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Festinger 与 Carlsmith,《Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.》,The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1959 (DOI: 10.1037/h0041593)
Festinger & Carlsmith, 'Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.', The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, DOI: 10.1037/h0041593
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/h0041593
#认知失调 #理由不足 #态度内化
什么是“社会助长”与“社会懈怠”？
What are social facilitation and social loafing?
社会助长指他人在场能提升简单任务表现，社会懈怠指群体中个人努力程度下降。两者都说明他人存在会改变个体的行为投入。
Social facilitation is that the presence of others improves performance on simple tasks, while social loafing is the drop in individual effort within a group. Both show that others' presence changes how much we invest.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#社会助长 #社会懈怠 #群体
为什么我们总觉得自己不会被广告和假新闻带偏，却被别人轻易影响？
Why do we believe ads and fake news won't sway us, yet easily sway others?
戴维森的“第三人称效应”（Davison, 1983）指人们普遍觉得自己比他人更不受媒体影响，于是支持限制“别人会中招”的内容。这种偏差来自自我提升与乐观偏见，却可能导致低估自己真正被操控的风险。
Davison's third-person effect (1983) is the widespread belief that media influence others more than ourselves, leading people to back restrictions for those who would be fooled. Rooted in self-enhancement and optimism bias, it can blind us to our own susceptibility.
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。
Davison, W.P. (1983)《第三人称效应的假设》, Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1):1-15
Davison, W.P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.
#第三人称效应 #媒体影响 #乐观偏差
“单纯曝光效应（mere exposure effect）”说明了什么？
What does the "mere exposure effect" illustrate?
单纯曝光效应指人们仅仅因为反复接触某刺激，就会对其产生更高的喜好，无需任何奖励或熟悉信息的加工。Zajonc 于 1968 年提出并验证，说明喜好可在无意识层面由重复接触塑造。
The mere exposure effect is that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking of it, without any reward or conscious familiarity processing. Zajonc proposed and demonstrated it in 1968, showing preference can be shaped by mere repetition outside awareness.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Zajonc 1968 年论文（载 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology）；Myers《社会心理学》
Zajonc (1968) in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Myers, Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（首版 1
#单纯曝光效应 #Zajonc #喜好
什么是去个体化？
What is deindividuation?
去个体化指在匿名或群体氛围中，个人自我意识减弱、约束力下降，更容易做出平时不会做的冲动行为。网络匿名常放大这种现象。它解释了部分群体暴力和网络攻击。
Deindividuation is when anonymity or a group atmosphere weakens self-awareness and restraint, making people act on impulses they normally would not. Online anonymity often amplifies it. It explains some crowd violence and cyberaggression.
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+
#去个体化 #匿名 #群体
斯坦福监狱实验得出了什么结论？
What did the Stanford prison experiment conclude?
津巴多让大学生随机扮演狱警或囚犯，原本正常的人很快表现出虐待或顺从角色行为，实验仅6天就被迫中止。它说明情境力量会强烈塑造人的行为。
Zimbardo randomly assigned students to play guards or prisoners; ordinary people quickly adopted abusive or submissive roles, and the study was halted after just six days. It showed how powerfully situations can shape behavior.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#斯坦福监狱 #角色 #情境
阿希的“从众实验”说明了群体压力对判断的影响吗？
What does Asch's conformity experiment show about group pressure on judgment?
阿希于 1951 年让被试在明显的长度判断任务中面对多数人一致的错误答案，结果发现约三分之一的被试在大多数关键试次中跟随群体错误，约四分之三的人至少从众一次。实验显示群体规范能在感知判断上产生强大影响。
In 1951 Asch had participants judge line lengths while confederates gave unanimously wrong answers; about one-third conformed on most critical trials, and roughly three-quarters conformed at least once. The study shows group norms can strongly sway even perceptual judgments.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Asch 1951 年论文（载 Psychological Monographs）；Myers《社会心理学》
Asch (1951) in Psychological Monographs; Myers, Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（首版 1
#阿希 #从众 #群体压力
“责任分散”（diffusion of responsibility）是什么？
What is diffusion of responsibility?
责任分散指当多人可提供帮助时，每个人觉得“总有人会做”，于是个人责任感被稀释。它是旁观者效应的核心机制之一。明确指派具体人（如“穿蓝衣的你，请报警”）能打破分散、提高救助率。
Diffusion of responsibility is that when many could help, each feels someone else will, so personal duty thins. It is a core mechanism of the bystander effect. Naming a specific person, like you in blue, call the police, breaks diffusion and raises help.
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+
#责任分散 #旁观者 #群体
我们是怎么从“我刚才做了什么”反推出“我到底是什么样的人”的？
How do we infer what kind of person I am from what I just did?
贝姆的“自我知觉理论”（Bem, 1972）认为，当内在态度模糊时，人会像旁观者一样，从自己的外显行为反推态度。这解释了为什么小承诺会悄悄改变偏好、为什么“假装喜欢”久了可能真喜欢——行为先于并塑造了自我认知。
Bem's self-perception theory (1972) says when internal attitudes are unclear, we infer them from our own behavior as an outside observer would. It explains why small commitments quietly shift preference and why pretending to like can become real - behavior precedes and shapes self-knowledge.
难度 进阶 · 适合 高中(15-18)
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。
Bem, D.J. (1972)《自我知觉理论》, in Berkowitz(编) Experimental Social Psychology 进展 6:1-62
Bem, D.J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
#自我知觉理论 #态度形成 #行为推断
刻板印象和偏见有什么区别？
How do stereotypes and prejudice differ?
刻板印象是对某群体的笼统看法，偏见则是对该群体带有负面评价的情绪态度。偏见可能导致歧视行为。两者相关但分属认知与情感层面。
A stereotype is a generalized belief about a group, while prejudice is a negative evaluative attitude toward that group. Prejudice can lead to discriminatory behavior. They are related but sit at the cognitive and affective levels respectively.
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+
#刻板印象 #偏见 #歧视
什么是“内隐偏见”？
What is implicit bias?
内隐偏见是人们无意识中持有的、未经反思的态度或刻板印象，会影响不带恶意的决策。它可通过内隐联想测验测量，且不同于公开表达的外显偏见。
Implicit bias is an unconscious, unreflective attitude or stereotype that can affect decisions even without malicious intent. It is measured by the Implicit Association Test and differs from openly expressed explicit bias.
难度 进阶 · 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+
#内隐偏见 #刻板印象 #无意识
什么是刻板印象？
What is a stereotype?
刻板印象是对某一群体成员固定的、过度简化的看法，比如“某类人一定怎样”。它能帮大脑快速归类，但也容易导致偏见和不公平的对待。意识到刻板印象是减少歧视的第一步。
A stereotype is a fixed, oversimplified belief about members of a group, such as 'certain people are always a certain way'. It helps the brain categorize quickly but can lead to prejudice and unfair treatment. Recognizing stereotypes is the first step to reducing discrimination.
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+
#刻板印象 #偏见 #归类
Festinger 的“认知失调”理论如何解释态度改变？
How does Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory explain attitude change?
认知失调指当个体同时持有相互冲突的认知（如“吸烟有害”却“我在吸烟”）时会产生心理紧张，从而倾向于改变态度或行为以消除不适。Festinger 于 1957 年提出，并用著名的“1 美元/20 美元”实验证明，报酬越小、理由越不足，态度改变反而越大。
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort from holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., “smoking harms” yet “I smoke”), driving people to change attitudes or behavior to reduce tension. Festinger proposed it in 1957 and, in the famous $1/$20 experiment, showed that insufficient justification produces greater attitude change.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Festinger《认知失调理论》（1957）；Myers《社会心理学》
Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957); Myers, Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL4788697W：A Theory of Cognitive D
#认知失调 #态度改变 #Festinger
旁观者效应的经典叙事有哪些被修正之处？
Which parts of the classic bystander effect narrative have been revised?
教科书长期以纽约一起凶杀案中三十八名目击者无人报警的叙事引入责任分散概念，但后来的档案核查表明，能清楚看到全过程的证人远少于此，确有人报警和呼喊，媒体报道存在夸大。达利与拉塔内的实验室研究依然稳健：旁观人数越多，个体的干预概率与速度下降，机制包括责任分散、评价顾虑与多元无知。更晚近的公共监控录像分析进一步发现，在真实暴力冲突中至少有一人介入的比例超过九成，说明旁观者人数增加会降低个体概率，却提高了至少有人出手的总体可能性。
Textbooks long introduced diffusion of responsibility with the story of a New York murder witnessed by thirty-eight people who did nothing, but archival checks showed far fewer witnesses had a clear view, some did shout or call the police, and the press account was exaggerated. Darley and Latané's laboratory findings nonetheless hold up: as the number of bystanders grows, an individual's likelihood and speed of intervening fall, through diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension, and pluralistic ignorance. More recent analyses of public surveillance footage add that in real violent conflicts someone intervenes in over ninety percent of cases, so larger crowds lower individual probability while raising the overall chance that help arrives.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Darley 与 Latané（1968）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》；Manning、Levine 与 Collins（2007）《American Psychologist》；Philpot 等（2020）《American Psychologist》
Darley and Latané (1968), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Manning, Levine and Collins (2007), American Psychologist; Philpot et al. (2020), American Psychologist
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0003-066x.62.6.555
#旁观者效应 #责任分散 #监控录像研究
什么是“刻板印象”？
What is a stereotype?
刻板印象是对某一群体成员过度简化、固定化的看法，常以偏概全。它可能源于认知上的分类节约，却会导致偏见与不公的对待。
A stereotype is an oversimplified, fixed belief about members of a group that generalizes from the few to the many. It may arise from the mind's category shortcuts yet leads to prejudice and unfair treatment.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#刻板印象 #偏见 #认知
“习得性无助”在儿童身上如何表现？
How does learned helplessness appear in children?
塞利格曼发现反复遭受不可控挫折的个体（包括儿童）会学会“努力无用”，随后即便情境可变也消极放弃。在学校中，常遇失败的孩子可能形成“我学不好”的固定信念。它提示及时给予可控的成功体验能预防无助感。
Seligman found that repeated uncontrollable setbacks lead individuals, including children, to learn that effort is useless and then give up even when change is possible. In school, frequently failing children may form a fixed belief of I can't learn. Timely experiences of controllable success prevent helplessness.
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+
#习得性无助 #儿童 #动机
什么是权威服从实验？
What was the obedience to authority experiment?
米尔格拉姆让被试在“老师”角色下对他人施加看似痛苦的电击，即使不安，约65%的人仍服从穿白大褂的实验者指示，直到最高电压。它揭示了普通人在权威命令下可能做出违背良心的事。这推动了对实验伦理的反思。
Milgram had participants, as 'teachers', deliver what seemed like painful electric shocks; about 65% obeyed the experimenter in a lab coat to the highest voltage despite discomfort. It revealed that ordinary people may act against conscience under authority orders. It spurred reflection on research ethics.
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：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
Milgram 1963 实验
Milgram 1963 experiment
#服从 #权威 #米尔格拉姆
什么是社会认同理论？
What is social identity theory?
社会认同理论认为，人们通过所属群体来定义自我，并倾向于对内群体偏好、对外群体贬低以提升自尊。这解释了群体间的偏见与竞争。它也是理解球迷、国籍认同的框架。
Social identity theory holds that people define themselves through group membership and favor the in-group while downgrading out-groups to boost self-esteem. This explains intergroup bias and competition. It also frames fan and national identities.
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+
#社会认同 #内群体 #自尊
阿希从众实验中，人们是真的看错了还是只是不愿反对？
In Asch's conformity experiments, did people actually misperceive the lines or merely avoid dissent?
实验让被试在明显的线段长度判断中面对一致给出错误答案的同伴，约三分之一的关键试次出现从众。事后访谈显示动机各异：多数人明知答案不对，只是不愿在群体中显得突兀，属于规范性影响；少数人真的开始怀疑自己的知觉，属于信息性影响。决定性的操纵是引入一名持异议的同伴，从众率立刻大幅下降，这说明关键不是多数人的数量，而是一致性是否被打破。
Participants judged obvious line lengths while confederates unanimously gave wrong answers, and conformity appeared on roughly a third of critical trials. Post-experiment interviews revealed mixed motives: most knew the answer was wrong but did not want to stand out, which is normative influence, while a minority genuinely began to doubt their own perception, which is informational influence. The decisive manipulation was adding a single dissenting confederate, after which conformity dropped sharply — showing that what matters is not the size of the majority but whether its unanimity is broken.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Asch（1955）《Scientific American》从众研究；Asch（1951）群体压力与判断修正实验报告
Asch (1955), Scientific American, Opinions and social pressure; Asch (1951), Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL13076972W：Opinions and social pr
#从众 #规范性影响 #异议者效应
有人围观时表现会更好还是更差？社会助长理论怎么解释这种分歧？
Does an audience improve or impair performance, and how does social facilitation theory reconcile the two?
早期研究结果看似矛盾：他人在场时，骑行速度、简单反应等任务表现提升，而学习生词、解复杂问题等任务表现下降。扎伊翁茨提出驱力理论加以整合：他人在场提高生理唤醒，而唤醒会强化优势反应；对已经熟练的任务，优势反应就是正确反应，因此表现改善；对尚未掌握的任务，优势反应往往是错误反应，因此表现变差。后续解释补充了评价顾虑与注意冲突等社会认知因素，说明单纯的他人存在与被评价的预期作用并不相同。
Early findings looked contradictory: with others present, cycling speed and simple reaction tasks improved while learning new vocabulary or solving complex problems got worse. Zajonc integrated them with a drive account: the presence of others raises physiological arousal, and arousal strengthens the dominant response; on well-practised tasks the dominant response is the correct one so performance improves, while on unmastered tasks it is often an error so performance declines. Later accounts added social-cognitive factors such as evaluation apprehension and attentional conflict, showing that mere presence and the expectation of being judged do not work identically.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
Zajonc（1965）《Science》社会助长；Bond 与 Titus（1983）《Psychological Bulletin》社会助长元分析
Zajonc (1965), Science, Social facilitation; Bond and Titus (1983), Psychological Bulletin, meta-analysis of social facilitation
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1126/science.149.3681.269 · 核验依据 2 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265
#社会助长 #驱力理论 #优势反应
为什么人们常高估别人对自己失误的关注程度？
Why do people overestimate how much others notice their blunders?
聚光灯效应指个体误以为自己处在他人注意的中心。实验让被试穿着尴尬的 T 恤走进房间，事后他们估计的注意到该图案的人数远高于实际比例。原因在于自我关注造成的可及性差异：自己的形象与失误在自己心中格外突出，而他人正忙于关注自身，且难以对锚定在自我视角上的估计做出充分校正。相关的透明度错觉还表明，人们高估了自己的紧张、说谎或情绪能被他人看穿的程度，理解这一点对缓解社交焦虑与公开演讲恐惧有实际帮助。
The spotlight effect is the tendency to believe one occupies the centre of others' attention. In one experiment participants entered a room wearing an embarrassing T-shirt and afterwards estimated far more observers had noticed the image than actually had. The cause is a difference in accessibility created by self-focus: one's own appearance and mistakes are highly salient to oneself while others are preoccupied with their own concerns, and people fail to adjust sufficiently away from an estimate anchored on their own perspective. A related illusion of transparency shows people overestimate how visible their nervousness, lies, or emotions are, which is practically useful for easing social anxiety and fear of public speaking.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Gilovich、Medvec 与 Savitsky（2000）《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》聚光灯效应；Gilovich 与 Savitsky（1999）《Current Directions in Psychological Science》
Gilovich, Medvec and Savitsky (2000), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, The spotlight effect; Gilovich and Savitsky (1999), Current Directions in Psychological Science
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211
#聚光灯效应 #透明度错觉 #社交焦虑
米尔格拉姆的“服从实验”揭示了什么？
What did Milgram's obedience experiment reveal?
米尔格拉姆在 1961–1963 年的实验中让参与者在“权威”指令下对“学习者”施加渐增电击，约 65% 的人服从到最高 450 伏。实验表明普通人会在权威命令下做出违背良心的伤害行为，引发关于伦理与服从的深远讨论。
In experiments from 1961–1963, Milgram had participants administer escalating shocks to a “learner” under an authority's orders; about 65% complied to the maximum 450 volts. The study showed ordinary people may commit harmful acts under authoritative command, sparking lasting debate on ethics and obedience.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-03
来源 · Source
Milgram 1963 年论文（载 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology）；Myers《社会心理学》
Milgram (1963) in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; Myers, Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 OPENLIBRARY 标识 /works/OL14859352W：Social psychology（首版 1
#米尔格拉姆 #服从 #权威
为什么匿名会让人更不礼貌？
Why does anonymity make people ruder?
匿名削弱了对评价和后果的顾虑，也降低了自我监控，使人更易释放攻击性或失礼言行。这与去个体化密切相关。网络环境尤其需要规范来弥补。
Anonymity lowers concern about evaluation and consequences and reduces self-monitoring, making people more likely to release aggression or rudeness. It is closely tied to deindividuation. Online spaces especially need norms to compensate.
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+
#匿名 #礼貌 #网络
看到别人的手被针扎时,我们为什么会缩手或感到一阵刺痛?
Why do we flinch or feel a brief stab of pain when we see someone else pricked by a needle?
脑成像研究表明,目睹他人疼痛会选择性激活自身痛觉网络中的情感成分,主要是前扣带回与前岛叶,而初级体感皮层保持相对安静。这种共享的情感表征让旁观者产生替代性不适,也为安慰、帮助等亲社会行为提供了直接的内在动机。
Brain-imaging studies show that witnessing another person's pain selectively engages the affective component of one's own pain network, chiefly the anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula, while primary somatosensory cortex stays relatively quiet. This shared affective representation generates vicarious discomfort in observers and supplies intrinsic motivation for prosocial acts such as comforting and helping.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-04
来源 · Source
Singer, Seymour, O'Doherty, Kaube,《Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain》,Science,2004 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1093535)
Singer, Seymour, O'Doherty, Kaube, 'Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain', Science, 2004, DOI: 10.1126/science.1093535
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 Crossref DOI 10.1126/science.1093535
#共情 #疼痛共情
麦克米伦与查维斯提出的“社区感”理论包含哪四个要素?
What four elements make up McMillan and Chavis's theory of sense of community?
该模型把社区感定义为成员的归属体验以及对群体的共同情感联结,包含四个成分:成员资格、影响力(个体影响群体也被群体影响)、需求整合与满足、共享的情感连接。后来的社区感指数量表正是按这四维度编制。该框架至今仍是评估街区凝聚力与设计社区干预的主流工具。
The model defines sense of community as members' feeling of belonging and shared emotional connection to the group, comprising membership, influence (individuals shape the group and are shaped by it), integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. The Sense of Community Index was later built directly on these four dimensions. The framework remains the dominant tool for assessing neighborhood cohesion and designing community interventions.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-04
来源 · Source
McMillan & Chavis (1986), Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory, Journal of Community Psychology
McMillan & Chavis (1986), "Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory," Journal of Community Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 DOI 10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::aid-jcop2290140103>
#社区心理学 #社区感
为什么生活在邻里联系紧密的社区里的人，心理状态往往更好？
Why do people who live in neighborhoods with close-knit ties tend to be better off psychologically?
社区心理学常用“社区感”来解释：当居民觉得自己属于这个社区、彼此重要并且能一起影响公共事务时，日常压力就被缓冲了。紧密的邻里网络还提供实际帮助和非正式照看，削弱孤独感与失范感。干预研究显示，改善公共空间、组织邻里活动能够切实提升居民的心理健康指标。
Community psychology explains it through “sense of community”: when residents feel they belong, matter to one another, and can jointly influence local affairs, everyday stressors get buffered. Dense neighborhood networks also provide practical help and informal looking-after, weakening isolation and anomie. Intervention research shows that improving public spaces and organizing neighborhood activities measurably raises residents' mental-health indicators.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-04
来源 · Source
Kawachi & Berkman (2001), Social Ties and Mental Health, Journal of Urban Health, 78(3): 460-467
Kawachi & Berkman (2001), Social Ties and Mental Health, Journal of Urban Health 78(3): 460-467
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 DOI 10.1093/jurban/78.3.458
#社区感 #社会支持
共情—利他假说如何区分由共情驱动的助人与由利己动机驱动的助人?支持它的关键实验是怎样设计的?
How does the empathy-altruism hypothesis tell apart helping driven by empathy from helping driven by egoistic motives, and how were the key supporting experiments designed?
Batson提出,当目睹他人受苦而唤起共情关怀时,助人的最终目标是切实改善对方的处境;而在共情水平较低时,帮助往往服务于减轻自身不安或回避内疚等利己目的。在他1981年的关键实验中,被试目睹一名同伴接受电击后可以选择代替其承受剩余电击,实验同时操纵了共情的唤起程度以及被试能否轻易离开现场。结果显示,高共情组即便可以轻松逃离也依然选择代为承受,这支持了共情能够引发纯粹的利他动机,尽管该结论至今仍有争论。
Batson argued that when witnessing another person suffer arouses empathic concern, the ultimate goal of helping is genuinely to improve that person's situation, whereas under low empathy helping tends to serve egoistic ends such as easing one's own discomfort or dodging guilt. In his pivotal 1981 experiment, participants watched a confederate receive shocks and could volunteer to take the remaining shocks for her, while empathic arousal and the ease of escaping the scene were manipulated. Highly empathic participants still volunteered even when they could easily leave, supporting the claim that empathy evokes pure altruistic motivation, though the conclusion remains contested.
难度 进阶 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-04
来源 · Source
Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch (1981), Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?,《Journal of Personality and Social Psychology》
Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch (1981), Is Empathic Emotion a Source of Altruistic Motivation?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
#共情利他假说 #亲社会动机
一群人围观事故却没人出手帮忙,旁观者效应是怎么回事?
Why do crowds watch accidents without helping? What is the bystander effect?
1964年纽约吉诺维斯案引发研究:人越多,每人施救的可能性越低。两大机制在作怪:责任分散(这么多人总会有人管的)与多元无知(别人都没动,可能不严重吧)。破解方法已被写进急救培训:求助时指定具体的人——穿蓝衣服的先生请帮我打120!被点名的人责任瞬间集中,行动率大增。
After the 1964 Kitty Genovese case research found crowds reduce individual helping through two forces: diffusion of responsibility (someone will call) and pluralistic ignorance (nobody moved so it must be fine). First-aid training now teaches the fix: name a specific person — you in blue, call 120! Pointed-out duty concentrates instantly and action rates soar.
难度 进阶 · 适合 小学高段(9-12)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-03 · 2 条独立证据
来源 · Source
《十万个为什么》第六版大脑与认知分册,总主编韩启德,分册主编杨雄里,少年儿童出版社,2013
Ten Thousand Whys, 6th ed., Brain and Cognition volume, chief editor Han Qide, volume editor Yang Xiongli, Juvenile and Children Publishing House, 2013
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 978-7-5324-9328-9 · 核验依据 2 ISBN 9787532493289
#旁观者效应 #责任分散 #求助技巧
波波玩偶实验如何说明儿童不必亲身受到奖惩,也能习得攻击行为?
How did the Bobo doll experiment show that children can acquire aggressive behavior without ever being rewarded or punished themselves?
直答:仅凭观察榜样就足以完成学习。Bandura等1961年让部分儿童目睹成人对波波玩偶拳打脚踢,这些孩子随后做出的模仿攻击远多于未观看的一组;其后的实验进一步显示,目睹榜样受奖励的孩子模仿得更多,这就是替代强化。观察学习沿注意、保持、再现、动机四个环节推进,无需亲身承受后果,直接动摇了行为须经直接强化才能习得的假设。
Watching a model alone suffices for learning. In 1961 Bandura and colleagues had some children watch an adult kick and punch the Bobo doll; those children later produced far more imitative aggression than children who saw none, and follow-up studies showed that children who saw the model rewarded imitated even more - vicarious reinforcement. Observational learning runs through attention, retention, reproduction and motivation with no firsthand consequence, undercutting the claim that only direct reinforcement shapes behavior.
难度 进阶 · 适合 初中(12-15)
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
Bandura、Ross与Ross论文《Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models》,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1961(斯坦福大学)
Bandura A, Ross D & Ross SA, 'Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961 (Stanford University)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 CROSSREF 标识 10.1037/h0045925：Transmission of aggression
#社会学习理论 #观察学习 #替代强化
什么是旁观者效应（bystander effect）？
What is the bystander effect?
旁观者效应指紧急事件中有越多旁观者，任一个出手帮忙的概率反而越低。因为责任被分散，且大家互相观察以判断“是否真有危险”。它提醒我们在现场应明确指向某人求助会更有效。
The bystander effect is that the more onlookers at an emergency, the lower the chance any one helps. Responsibility diffuses and people watch each other to judge if it is real danger. It reminds us to single out a specific person when asking for help.
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+
#旁观者效应 #亲社会 #责任
什么是“从众”？
What is conformity?
从众是指个体在群体压力下改变自己的行为或看法以与多数人一致。阿希的线段实验显示，即便答案明显，约三分之一的人也会跟随群体错误判断。
Conformity is changing one's behavior or opinion to match the majority under group pressure. Asch's line experiment showed that even with obvious answers, about a third of people will follow the group's wrong judgment.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-11-02
来源 · Source
《社会心理学》（阿伦森）
The Social Psychology (Aronson)
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9787115591838（豆瓣书目条目: 社会心理学）
#从众 #群体压力 #阿希
为什么人会在网上更敢说难听的话？
Why do people say harsher things online?
网络让人看不到对方表情、离得很“远”，责任感下降，这种现象叫“去个体化”。匿名和缺少即时反馈也削弱了自我约束。意识到这一点能让我们在网上更友善。
Online, we cannot see the other person's face and feel distant, so our sense of responsibility drops—a phenomenon called 'deindividuation'. Anonymity and lack of immediate feedback also weaken self-control. Recognizing this helps us be kinder online.
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+
#去个体化 #网络 #匿名
帮助他人真的会让自己更快乐吗？
Does helping others really make you happier?
大量研究显示，善意行为会激活大脑的奖赏回路，带来短暂的愉悦和长期的幸福感提升。这被称为助人者的快乐效应。小到让座都可能有用。
Many studies show kind acts activate the brain's reward circuits, bringing brief pleasure and longer-term well-being gains. This is called the helper's happiness effect. Even small acts like giving up a seat can help.
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+
#助人 #幸福感 #利他
为什么人在群体中可能更敢冒险？
Why might people take more risks in groups?
群体讨论常使成员的态度走向更极端，称为风险转移或群体极化，责任分散也降低了顾虑。这既能带来大胆创新，也可能导致冒进决策。团队决策时需警惕。
Group discussion often pushes members toward more extreme positions, called risk shift or group polarization, and shared responsibility lowers caution. This can yield bold innovation but also rash decisions. Teams should watch for it.
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+
#群体极化 #冒险 #决策
为什么大家排队时我们也想排？
Why do we want to join a queue when others are lining up?
这既是“从众”，也来自“社会证明”——我们倾向于认为很多人做的事多半没错。排队还降低了不确定感，让人觉得更安心。这是群体智慧，也可能让我们盲从。
This is both 'conformity' and 'social proof'—we tend to believe that what many people do is probably right. Queuing also reduces uncertainty and feels safer. It is crowd wisdom, but can also lead to blind following.
难度 入门 · 适合 小学高段(9-12)
CC BY 4.0 · 来源待核验 · Source pending review
来源 · Source
出处备注：此条未指向带版次的可引用著作（通识性内容、机构文件或未展开的英文书名），本库不提供独立书目出处；如需精确引用，需由编辑补全具体篇目与版次。
社会影响研究（Cialdini）
Social influence research (Cialdini)
#社会证明 #从众 #群体
什么是从众？
What is conformity?
从众是个体在群体压力下改变行为或看法以与多数人一致。它既可能出于想被接纳，也可能因为相信群体更正确。适度从众有助于融入，过度则丧失独立判断。
Conformity is changing behavior or opinion to match the majority under group pressure. It may stem from wanting acceptance or from believing the group is more correct. Some conformity aids belonging; too much costs independent judgment.
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+
#从众 #群体 #压力
第一印象为什么这么重要？
Why are first impressions so important?
第一印象形成快且持久，会作为后续判断的框架，这被称为首因效应。人们往往很难摆脱最初形成的看法。初次见面时的礼貌与得体很关键。
First impressions form quickly and last long, serving as a framework for later judgment, known as the primacy effect. People find it hard to shed initially formed views. Politeness and poise at first meeting matter.
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+
#第一印象 #首因效应 #判断
为什么一首歌、一张脸，听/看的次数多了，就会莫名觉得顺眼、喜欢？
Why does a song or face we keep encountering start to feel pleasant and liked for no clear reason?
扎荣茨的“纯粹接触效应”（Zajonc, 1968）表明，仅仅反复暴露某刺激就能提升好感，无需任何正面经验或清醒评价。一种解释是熟悉带来“安全信号”降低警觉，所以广告洗脑、邻座脸熟都靠这个无声的偏好工厂。
Zajonc's mere-exposure effect (1968) shows that simply repeating exposure to a stimulus raises liking, with no positive experience or conscious judgment needed. Familiarity reads as a safety signal that lowers vigilance, so ad repetition and the friendly face next door both ride this silent preference factory.
难度 入门 · 适合 幼儿(3-6)
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。
Zajonc, R.B. (1968)《纯粹接触的态度效应》, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2):1-27
Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
#纯粹接触效应 #熟悉感 #好感
为什么我们倾向于喜欢和自己相似的人？
Why do we tend to like people similar to ourselves?
相似性带来认同感和可预测性，让人更轻松和安心，这被称为同质性吸引。共同兴趣也更容易发展成友谊。这是人际吸引的常见规律。
Similarity brings a sense of validation and predictability that makes interactions easier and safer, known as homophily in attraction. Shared interests also grow into friendship more easily. It is a common rule of interpersonal attraction.
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+
#相似性 #人际吸引 #友谊
什么是“破窗效应”（broken windows theory）？
What is the broken windows theory?
破窗效应认为环境中的小失序（如破窗、涂鸦）若不被修复，会释放出“无人管”的信号，诱使更大越轨。它强调维护秩序表象能抑制犯罪升级。该理论影响警务策略，但也因证据混杂受争议。
The broken windows theory holds that small disorder like broken windows or graffiti, left unrepaired, signals no one cares and invites bigger deviance. It stresses that keeping order curbs crime escalation. It shaped policing yet is debated for mixed evidence.
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+
#破窗效应 #环境 #越轨
为什么人们在艰难地做出选择之后,常常会更确信自己选中的那个选项本来就是最好的?
Why do people often become more convinced that the option they chose was truly the best one right after making a difficult decision?
这背后是决策后的认知失调:所选方案的缺点与落选方案的优点,同「我做了明智决定」的认知相互冲突,带来心理不适。由于木已成舟,最省力的调和办法不是撤销行为,而是调整态度——抬高已选项、贬低弃选项,Brehm让被试对家电先评分、做选择后再重评的经典实验证实了这种系统性偏移。
Post-decision cognitive dissonance is behind this: the flaws of the chosen option and the merits of the forgone one clash with the belief that you decided wisely, and the clash feels unpleasant. Because the decision cannot be undone, the cheapest fix is to shift the attitude rather than the behavior - rating the picked option higher and the rejected one lower, exactly what Brehm saw when participants re-rated appliances after choosing.
难度 入门 · 适合 大众
CC BY 4.0 · 已核验 · Verified 2026-10-04
来源 · Source
Festinger专著《A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance》(认知失调理论),Stanford University Press 1957
Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, 1957
独立核验依据 · Independent verification: 核验依据 1 ISBN 9780804709118 (1957)
#认知失调 #决策后失调 #态度改变