认知与发展心理学研究室知识库

对社会约定的理解和推理是义务推理研究中的热点之一，也是儿童日常生活中的一项重要课题。本研究从发展的角度，采用四择多的评定任务和情绪判断与归因任务考察了4, 5, 6岁幼儿对两种形式的社会约定((if p, then q)—以义务规则形式表述的条件许诺和以准许规则形式表述的条件警告—中同济、权威以及双方同时作为约定违背者的检测情况及其对约定违背中的违反者、受害者以及假设自己为约定中的小孩一方时的情绪判断与归因，以揭示儿童早期对社会约定的认知水平、义务推理潜力及其对约定违背的情绪结果的认知特点。主要结论如下:
1)幼儿对日常教养情境下条件许诺和条件警告的认知发展表现出相同的趋势，并可划分为四种认知水平:水平I一初步理解同济违反(4,5岁，2.5%, 32.5% ) ;水平II--理解,同违反(5, 6岁，15%, 15% );水平I I I--理解权威违反(5, 6岁，岁，37.5%, 52.5%):水平IV一初步理解社会约定中的双违反((6岁，30%)。
对社会约定违背检测的准确确性依赖于所考察的角色，并且不同年龄的幼儿对不同角色违背检测的准确性也有所不同，表现出土述4个水平的发展趋势。这一效应被称之为评定任务中的“角色效应”，尤其是在有两个违反者的卡片上，双违反的出现严重干扰了5, 6岁儿童对妈妈作为违反者的检测，但是对孩一了违反约定的检测基本没有影响，被称之为“同济违背优先检测”效应。
2)幼儿还没有条件许诺理解为双条件规则，刘条件警告的双条件性的理解比条件许诺要好一些。
3)幼儿对条件许诺和条件警告违背中的情绪判断与归因表现.出类似的模式，4, 5岁幼儿情绪归因均以一单维定向(只考虑约定（只考虑约定中的p或q）为主，他们对约定违背中的情绪认知是一不中朴素的情绪观，随年龄增大(主要在6岁)，幼儿才能逐渐在评定任务和情绪归因中将前提、结果结合起来考虑，表现出约定定向的情绪观。这一发展趋势在对小孩作为受利者的情绪认知仁更为明显，特别是6岁幼儿给出的pq结合理由已经占有一定优势。
4)对约定违背中同挤或权威作为违反者或受害者情绪判断与归因有所不同。
对同济的情绪预期依赖于所给情境中的小孩是否得到奖励，而不是其充当的角色是违反者或受害者;对妈妈的情绪预期则与被试年龄、以及妈妈所充当的角色有关。
对同济的情绪认知总体上好于对权威的，尤其是在他们作为受害者的时候;对同济作为受害者的情绪归因比作为违反者的情绪归因给出Pq结合理由更多一些;对权威作为双重角色的情绪归因比作为违反者、受害者的情绪归因给出pq结合理由稍多一些。
5)幼儿对约定违背中的小孩和假设自己为任务中的小孩的情绪判断与归因没有差别。

Understanding and reasoning about social contract (ifp，then q) is the focus of deontic reasoning, as well as an important project in hildren's everyday life. 4, 5, and 6-year-olds' understanding of social contract violation and the corresponding emotion consequence were examined through multi一choice evaluation tasks and emotion judgment tasks ensued. Two types of social contracts一一conditional promises presented in the form of obligation schema and conditional warnings in permission schcma一一were explored respectively in two studies including two experiments each. The results indicate that:
1)Preschoolers' understanding of conditional promise and warning in daily circumstances shows similar and evident developmental progress, and can be classified info four cognitive levels: Leve) I, preparatory understanding of peer violation (4&5一year-olds, 82.5%&32.5%); Level II, understanding of peer violation (5&C-year-olds, 15%&15%); bevel III, understanding of authority violation (5&6-year-olds, 37.5%&52.5%); Level IV, preparatory understanding of bilateral violation (6-year-olds, 30%).
Accuracy in the detection of social contract violation is closely associated with violating figure and children's ages, which is illuminated by the four cognitive levels above and is called as the "perspective effects" in evaluation tasks. especially in the Situations with bilateral violaltion, many children could only recognize the child's violation and neglected the mom's one. This is called as the "effect of priority detection for peer violation".
2) Peshoolers haven't understood conditional promise as bicodnditional, and this understanding for conditional warning may be better.
3) For the conditional promise and warning, the same mode occurs in children's emotion cognition for emotional consequence concerning contract violation.
4)&5一year一olds' emotion attributions are mainly one-dimension oriented (only por q in the contract is eonsidered) and are considered as a naive emotional perspective; as growing older (mainly at 6), they can combine the "p" and "q" in both evaluation task and emotion task and have the contract-oriented emotion perspective. This developmental trend is especially evident in emotion cognition for the peer as victim, anal 6-year-olds began to give do111111alltly p-q combined reason.
4) Children's emotion judgment and attribution for the peer or authority as the violator or victim in social contract violation are some different.
Expectation of peer's emotion depends on whether the child can get reward or escape from punishment in the circumstances, not on their role as violator or victim; while expectation of authority's is associated with subjects' age and mom's role.
Emotion cognition for the peer are generally better than for the authority, especially when they act as victims; Cmotion cognition for the peer as violator are better than as victim and for the authority as bi-role are some better than as violator or victim.
5) There's no difference between preschoolers' emotion judgments towards story protagonist and themselves assumed to be story protagonist.