|
|
|
| The moderating effect of common in-group identity on inter-group threat triggered aggression in healthcare |
| WANG Pei1, HAN Caixia2, DING Chuan2 |
1 Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062;
2 Department of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Based on the inter-group threat theory and the common in-group identity model, we investigated the moderating effects of common in-group identity on inter-group threat-induced aggression at both the explicit and implicit levels using the Competitive Reaction Time （CRT） and Implicit Association Paradigm （IAT） as the initiating material for the malignant doctor-patient dissonance. Results： Individuals in the inter-group threat group had significantly higher explicit and implicit aggression than those in the non-threat group; individuals with common in-group identity had significantly lower explicit and implicit aggression than those in the non-common in-group identity group; In the no-threat condition, the presence or absence of common in-group identity did not have a greater effect on individuals' explicit and implicit aggression, but in the threat condition individuals with common in-group identity had significantly lower explicit and implicit aggression than those in the non-common in-group identity group. The individuals with common in-group identity had significantly lower explicit and implicit aggression than those in the no-ingroup threat group. This suggests that inter-group threat can trigger aggressive behavior and that common in-group identity can reduce the intensity of aggression due to inter-group threat. Therefore, it is important to reduce the perception of inter-group threat and build a common in-group identity between doctors and patients for the resolution of doctor-patient conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 陈竺. (2009). 医患双方实质上是“利益共同体”. 人民日报, 12-10, (008).
[2] 戴春林, 杨治良, 吴明证. (2005). 内隐攻击性的实验研究. 心理科学, 28(1), 96-98.
[3] 管健, 荣杨. (2020). 共同内群体认同:建构包摄水平更高的上位认同. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 57(1), 39-49.
[4] 贺雯, 朱佳丽, 孙亚文, 王晓兰,柏涌海. (2018). 元刻板印象威胁对医患关系的影响:群际焦虑的中介作用. 中国社会心理学评论, 14, 74-84.
[5] 艾娟. (2018). 医患失谐情境下的竞争受害者心理及其对策. 中国社会心理学评论, 1, 63-73.
[6] 李昭旭, 张进, 朱丽燕, 尹红艳, 刘国栋, 及崇岩,... 于金凤. (2019). 中国医患失谐根源的时代特点及社会治理策略. 中国医院管理, 39(12), 65-67.
[7] 刘伟, 梁立波, 薛乔丹, 陶思怡, 宋韦剑, 薛羽芯,孙明雷. (2020). 网络舆情对医患关系影响的文献分析. 医学与社会, 33(4), 6-9.
[8] 潘新丽. (2015).“共同体”的分离与重建:当代医患关系的医学哲学思考.华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 29(02), 109-113.
[9] 吕小康, 朱振达. (2016). 医患社会心态建设的社会心理学视角. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), 2, 110-116.
[10] 孙连荣, 杨治良. (2013). 社会偏见与群际威胁在群际冲突发生过程中的作用. 心理科学, 36(4), 949-955.
[11] 孙莹炜, 李义庭.(2020).和谐医患命运共同体建设的思考. 医学与哲学, (02), 44-46.
[12] 王俊秀, 周迎楠, 裴福华. (2021). 社会心理服务体系建设视角下铸牢中华民族共同体意识的路径——基于共同内群体认同理论. 民族学刊, 12(05), 17-23+108.
[13] 汪新建, 王丛. (2016). 医患信任关系的特征、现状与研究展望. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), (2), 102-109.
[14] 王沛, 孙连荣. (2019). 和谐医患关系的心理机制及其促进技术. 心理科学进展, 27(6), 957-964.
[15] 徐莉. (2016). 论防御性医疗行为与过度医疗行为的关系. 医学与社会, 29(2), 41-43.
[16] 尹红艳, 杨可心, 时宇, 张淑娥, 张敏, 王鸿妮, 赵鑫, 纪科宇, 程偲宇, 孙涛, 王小合. (2021).个体冲突跃迁为群际威胁:一个解释中国医患关系恶化成因的新视角. 医学与社会, 34(11), 70-73+78.
[17] 余明锋. (2020). 医患命运共同体何以可能?——从新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情的防控谈起.中国医学伦理学, 33(04), 395-399.
[18] 张婍, 冯江平, 王二平. (2009). 群际威胁的分类及其对群体偏见的影响. 心理科学进展, 17(2), 473-480.
[19] Arriaga P., Esteves F., Carneiro P., & Monteiro M. B. (2008). Are the effects of unreal violent video games pronounced when playing with a virtual reality system? Aggress Behav, 34(5), 521-538.
[20] Becker J. C., Wagner U., & Christ O. (2011). Consequences of the 2008 financial crisis for intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 871-885.
[21] Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452-459.
[22] Chinese doctors are under threat. (2010). Lancet, 376(9742), 657.
[23] Crisp R. J., Stone C. H., & Hall N. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality & Social Personality Bulletin, 32(2), 230-243.
[24] Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., & Saguy T. (2010). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 296-330.
[25] Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Anastasio P. A., Bachman B. A., & Rust M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4.
[26] Gaertner, S. L.et al.(2016). The common ingroup identity model and the development of a functional perspective: A cross-national collaboration. in Jorge Vala, Sven Waldzus and Maria M. Calheiros eds., The social developmental construction of violence and intergroup conflict, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 105-120.
[27] Iacoviello V., Lorenzi-Cioldi F., & Chipeaux M. (2018). The identification-similarity relationship as a function of ingroup status: A social identity perspective. Self and Identity, 18(6), 685-708.
[28] Ireland, J. L., & Adams, C. (2015). Implicit cognitive aggression among young male prisoners: Association with dispositional and current aggression. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 41, 89-94.
[29] Fuochi G., Boin J., Voci A., & Hewstone M. (2021). COVID-19 threat and perceptions of common belonging with outgroups: The roles of prejudice-related individual differences and intergroup contact. Personality and Individual Differences, 175. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110700
[30] Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43, 395-414.
[31] Reimer N. K., Kamble S. V., Schmid K., & Hewstone M. (2020). Intergroup contact fosters more inclusive social identities. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(1), 133-157.
[32] Kamans E., Otten S., & Gordijn E. H. (2010). Power and threat in intergroup conflict: How emotional and behavioral responses depend on amount and content of threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 293-310.
[33] Levendusky, M. S. (2018). Americans, not Partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59-70.
[34] Niesta D., Fritsche I., & Jonas E. (2008). Mortality salience and its effects on peace processes: A review. Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 2-8.
[35] Petersen, M. B. (2017). Healthy out-group members are represented psychologically as infected in-group members. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1857-1863.
[36] Renfro C. L., Duran A., Stephan W. G., & Clason D. L. (2006). The role of threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 41-74.
[37] Riek B. M., Mania E. W., Gaertner S. L., McDonald S. A., & Lamoreaux M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 403-423.
[38] Weisel Ori & Zultan Ro'i. (2021). Perceived level of threat and cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology, (12), doi:10.3389/FPSYG.2021.704338.
[39] Yang T., Zhang H., Shen F., Li J.-W., & Wu M.-C. (2013). Appeal from Chinese doctors to end violence. The Lancet, 382(9906), 1703-1704. |
|
|
|
