社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

近半个多世纪来，由于经济的发展、科技的发展、贸易往来的增加、全球化的加剧等因素，世界范围内的文化与人的心理行为都发生了广泛和深刻的变化。我国自新中国成立、特别是改革开放以来更是高速发展，社会翻天覆地，社会生态环境发生了巨大变化，进而导致文化心理在内的心理和行为也发生了广泛和深刻的变化。本论文拟通过系列研究，从不同视角探讨两个问题：1）中国人的文化心理的变化基本趋势如何？2）导致中国人的文化心理变化的背后生态原因是什么？论文首先分别对国内外的相关研究和理论进行了全面的整理，并对可能导致文化心理变化的生态原因、现有研究的基本发现、存在的问题进行了分析。然后以此为基础，设计了四个研究，分别利用跨时间的客观历史档案数据和跨地区的大样本调查，对上述两个问题进行了系统探讨。

研究一以具有文化心理意义的离婚率—结婚率之比、家庭独居率、家庭规模大小作为个人主义—集体主义的指标，结合同期社会生态指标（包括现代化、自然灾害和传染病指标），探讨自1985年以来我国的个人主义和集体主义的变迁。分析发现，自1985年来，个人主义指标上升，集体主义指标下降，并且这种变化趋势与现代化和传染病指标有关。

研究二以《 人民日报 》 1946年 —2014年间的文本为分析对象，以和个人主义和集体主义相关的词语每年的词频分别作为个人主义和集体主义的指标， 使用和研究一相同的社会生态指标， 探讨自 1946年以来个人主义和集体主义 的 变迁 。分析显示， 在 1946到 2014年间，个人主义相关词频显著上升，集体主义相关 词频 缓慢下降 ，并且 两者 分别 能 被现代化 理论 和传染病 理论所解释。

研究三是一项大规模网络数据调查， 分析了 来自全国 31个省市的 26,209名大学生的数据， 考察 了 16种与个人主义 集体主义相关的文化心理内容的地域差异，同时考虑 了 14种社会生态因素，试图通过地域差异重构中国在现代化过程中的文化心理变迁趋势 。 结果显示， 我国的个人主义 集体主义水平差异主要沿东西方向变化， 和现代化相关的社会生态变量 是预测我国不同地区个人主义 集体主义水平差异的最重要的因素。

研究四利用新冠病毒疫情期间的大样本调查数据，考察研究三的主要结果在流行病爆发期间是否具有稳健性。通过对来自全国31个省市的27,542名被试的数据分析发现，即使在疫情期间，现代化水平依然是预测个人主义—集体主义水平的重要因素，流行病相关变量则没有预测力。

四个研究结果一致表明：1）中国人的文化心理变化的一个基本趋势是个人主义上升和集体主义下降；2）导致中国人的文化心理变化的主要生态因素是由现代化导致的社会生态环境的变化，但流行病等生态因素也有部分解释力。总之，该系列研究揭示了中国人的文化心理变迁的基本趋势以及导致变迁的主要社会生态原因。这些发现在理论上丰富和拓展了社会生态环境和文化心理之间相互建构的关系，为现代化在文化心理变迁中的主导作用提供了新的证据；实践上可以为中国当下和未来的国家治理、社会心理服务、提升民众心理素质的实践提供指导。

The culture around the world, as well as people’s psychology and behavior, has undergone extensive and profound change over the past half century due to the enduring change of economy, technology, trading and globalization. Since the foundation of P.R.C, especially after the practice of reform and open-up policy, China has undergone rapid economic development and social change. Accordingly, the psychology and behavior of Chinese have also change substantially. The current dissertation aimed to address two questions via a series of studies: 1) what was the main tendency of the cultural-psychological change among Chinese? 2) what were the ecological forces underlying such changes? The dissertation first introduced relevant theories about culture and cultural change as well as the possible ecological drives, then reviewed the existing relevant research. To address the two main unanswered questions listed above, four studies were conducted by utilizing cross-temporal archive data and large-scale cross-regional survey data.

Study 1 used social indicators (i.e. divorce-marriage rate, single household rate and family size) as indexes of individualism and collectivism, with high divorce-marriage rate, high single household rate and small family size denoting high individualism and low collectivism, and examined four potential social ecological factors: modernization (including GDP per capita and urbanization), natural disasters and pandemic diseases. Results showed that individualism has been on the rise and collectivism has been declining since 1985, and modernization manifested the strongest explaining power, followed by pandemic prevalence.

Study 2 analyzed the text of People’s Daily from 1946 to 2014 and used the relative frequency of individualism/collectivism-themed words as indexes of individualism and collectivism, respectively. Four social ecological factors as used study 1 were used to predict the change of individualism-collectivism since 1946. Analysis showed that the frequency of individualism-related words increased significantly while the frequency of collectivism-related words decreased slowly, suggesting individualism has been on the rise but collectivism has been declining; again, modernization manifested the strongest explaining power, followed by pandemic prevalence.

Study 3 made use of a large-scale psychological survey implemented in China (N = 26,209), which assessed 16 cultural-psychological outcomes that have been established to manifest East (collectivism) - West (individualism) differences while considering 14 socioecological factors (e.g., societal modernization, subsistence style, existential insecurity, climate, residential mobility, population density). Results showed that, except for minor differences between North and South (4 out of 16 outcomes), within-culture differences in culture psychology mainly manifested between East coast and West inland (10 out of 16 outcomes). Moreover, East-West differences were mainly explained by modernization-related ecological factors (e.g., modernization and population density). These findings suggested that modernization was the main driving force of the variation of individualism and collectivism in China.

Study 4 made use of the data from a large-scale online survey conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak during Jan. 31st to Feb. 12th, 2020 to examine whether the main findings of Study 3 could be replicated during such a special period (N = 27,542). The results showed that modernization was still a significant predictor of regional differences of individualism-collectivism in China during the epidemic period, while pandemic prevalence showed no significant predicting power.

Four studies consistently showed that: 1) individualism has been on the rise while collectivism has been declining; 2) modernization related ecological factors constituted the main driving force, while other factors showed limited or no predicting power. These findings deepened and extended the understanding of the cultural psychological change in China, provided strong evidence for the modernization theory but limited evidence for other existing theories. These findings also had implications for the practices of social administration, psychological service, and promotion of well-being in China.