社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

近年来，越来越多的研究者开始借助行为免疫系统（Behavioral Immune System, 简称 BIS）这一视角来理解传染病的社会心理影响。该视角假设，人类在漫长的进化过程中演化出了抵御传染病威胁的心理系统（即：BIS）。与远古时期的传染病流行条件（外群体成员容易携带致命病毒）相适应，BIS 被传染病威胁激活后将削弱个体针对陌生人（外群体）的信任；与此同时，BIS 的激活也将增强个体针对家人（内群体）的信任。现有研究虽对上述假设进行了检验，但却缺乏区分和检验传染病威胁感知预测两种不同类型信任的动机机制，更缺乏检验 BIS 视角的现代适用性。因此，作者通过三个研究考察了新冠疫情下中国民众传染病威胁感知、动机与不同类型信任之间的关系，对 BIS 视角的核心假设是否适用于现代环境进行了系统检验。

研究一通过分析新冠疫情爆发期收集的覆盖全国 31 个省市受访者（N =25882）的问卷数据，初步检验了传染病威胁感知与传染病规避/亲缘照顾动机以及陌生人/家人信任之间的相关关系。研究二通过分析疫情缓和期在北京和广州收集的问卷数据（N = 632），对研究一结果的可重复性进行了检验。研究三通过基于启动范式的实验操纵（N = 475），明确传染病威胁感知的环境来源，并进一步检验传染病威胁感知与传染病规避/亲缘照顾动机以及陌生人/家人信任之间的关系。通过对三个研究的效应进行内部元分析，作者发现：1）传染病威胁感知与传染病规避动机总体而言呈正相关（平均效应量 r = 0.122，95% CI [0.110，0.134]），但传染病规避动机与陌生人信任之间的负相关并不稳定（平均效应量r = –0.067，95% CI [–0.149，0.014]；2）传染病威胁感知与亲缘照顾动机总体而言呈正相关（平均效应量 r = 0.069，95% CI [0.031，0.107]），亲缘照顾动机与家人信任呈正相关（平均效应量 r = 0.365，95% CI [0.246，0.483]），且亲缘照顾动机能够中介传染病威胁感知与家人信任之间的联系（平均效应量[标准化间接效应系数] = 0.022，95% CI [0.001，0.042]）；3）上述效应在不同研究间有明显差异：传染病规避动机与陌生人信任之间的负向关系在疫情爆发期或实验启动情境下的效应量高于疫情缓和期的效应量。传染病威胁感知与亲缘照顾动机之间I传染病威胁感知如何预测信任？基于行为免疫系统视角的检验的正向关系，以及亲缘照顾动机与家人信任之间的正向关系在疫情爆发期的效应量高于疫情缓和期或实验启动情境下的效应量。

上述结果仅部分支持了 BIS 视角针对传染病威胁如何预测家人信任和陌生人信任的假设。这提示我们该视角的适用性可能存在边界条件（比如：客观的疫情威胁大小、信任的类型、与信任对象的接触时长等），在应用相关理论时需更加谨慎。本研究还初步揭示了中国民众新冠疫情下家人信任和陌生人信任的一般模式与可能的动机因素，对疫情时期如何维系/促进社会信任有一定的启示意义。

Over the recent years, a growing body of research has explored the psychosocial impact of infectious diseases from the perspective of the Behavioral Immune System(BIS). This perspective postulates that human beings have evolved a BIS system to buffer against the threat of infectious diseases. In accordance with the epidemic conditions of infectious diseases in ancient times (when out-group members were highly likely to carry deadly viruses), the activation of BIS may weaken the trust in strangers (out-group members). Meanwhile, the activation of BIS may further enhance the trust in family members (in-group members). Although the existing research has tested the above hypothesis, it has seldom distinguished and tested the possible different motivational mechanisms behind the prediction of two different types of trust in infectious disease threat perception. Likewise, it has seldom tested the modern applicability of the BIS perspective. In three studies, the author examined the linkage between Chinese people’s threat perception of infectious disease, motivation, and different types of trust during the COVID-19 pandemic, which serves as a comprehensive test of whether the assumptions of the BIS perspective apply to the modern environment.

Study 1 examined the correlation between threat perception of infectious disease and motivation of disease-avoidance/kin-care, as well as stranger/family trust, by analyzing survey data collected from 31 provinces and cities (N = 25,882) during the outbreak period of COVID-19. Study 2 tested the replicability of the results of Study1 by analyzing survey data (N = 632) collected in Beijing and Guangzhou during the remission period of COVID-19. Study 3 used experimental manipulation based on the priming paradigm (N = 475) to specify the source of infection threat, and to further examine the relationship between infectious disease threat perception, disease-avoidance/kin-care motivation, and stranger/family trust. Through a mini meta-analysis of the effects of the three studies, the author found that: 1) The perceived threat of infectious diseases, in general, was positively correlated with disease-avoidance motivation (average effect size r = 0.122, 95%CI [0.010, 0.134]), but the negative correlation between disease-avoidance motivation and trust of strangers was not stable (average effect size r = –0.067, 95% CI [–0.149, 0.014]. 2) The perceived threat of infectious diseases, in general, was positively correlated with kin-care motivation (average effect size r = 0.069, 95% CI [0.031, 0.107]). Kin-care motivation was also positively correlated with family trust (average effect size r =0.365, 95% CI [0.246, 0.483]), and this motivation mediated the relationship between perceived threat of infectious disease and family trust (average effect size [standardized indirect effect coefficients] = 0.022, 95% CI [0.001, 0.042]). 3) There existed noticeable differences in the above-mentioned effects across different studies: the negative relationship between disease avoidance motivation and stranger trust tended to have a higher effect size in the outbreak period or experimental priming scenario than in the epidemic mitigation period. The positive relationship between infectious disease threat perception and kin care motivation, as well as the positive relationship between kin care motivation and family trust, tended to have a higher effect size during the outbreak than in the epidemic mitigation period or the experimental priming scenario.

Taken together, findings of the present research partially support the BIS hypothesis on how infectious disease threat would predict stranger trust and family trust. This suggests that there are boundary conditions (e.g., the actual threat level of pandemic in real life, the type of trust, the length of contact with the trusted object) for BIS theories. Thus, we should be cautious to apply the BIS perspective in practice. The current study also preliminarily reveals how Chinese people trust strangers and family members in the context of COVID-19, which may provide some insights into how to maintain/promote social trust during the epidemic period.