中文摘要：

过去社会困境的领导研究大多都以被试作为领导,发现贴上领导标签后,被试倾向于拿取更多的公共资源,从而有碍公共利益的实现。本研究指出,如果领导的背叛行为能够使群体成员表现出自我节制行为的话,那么设置领导则有可能促进公共利益的实现。研究通过三个实验,考察领导与普通群体成员不同的行为方式以及领导的产生方式对群体成员行为的影响,并检验公平理论和社会认同理论的解释力。研究结果表明,领导表现出背叛行为时,被试表现出更多的自我节制行为;指派领导及外群体选举领导背叛时,被试表现出更多的自我节制行为,验证了社会认同理论的正确性。

英文摘要：

In past leadership research using common resource dilemmas, most researchers have studied the behavior of participants who identified as the leader. Individuals labeled ＂leaders＂ tended to harvest more commonresources and impede the implementation of the public interest （De Cremer, 2003; De Cremer Van Dijk, 2005; Van Dijk De Cremer, 2006）. Less is known, however, about the effects of establishing a leader on the behavior of the participants. If the betrayal of the leader could stimulate the self-restraint behavior of the group members, then the establishing a leader might promote the realization of the public interest. Three experiments were used to examine the impact of a leader’s behavior on the group member’s decision making. Experiments 1 manipulated the presence or absence of a leader and tested how the different behavior of a leader or common group member would influence the group member’s decision. Participants showed more self-restraint behavior when a leader showed the betrayal than when a common group member showed the betrayal. The participants also found the leader’s betrayal fairer, and regarded the leader as out-group member. Experiment 1 didn’t find the explanatory differences between Equity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Experiment 2 was conducted to evaluate the group member’s reaction to appointed and elected leaders. Participants showed more self-restraint behavior when an appointed leader showed the betrayal than when an elected leader did so. The participants also found the betrayal of the elected leader fairer, and regarded the appointed leader as out-group member. Experiment 2 confirmed the explanatory power of Social Identity Theory. Experiment 3 tested the impact of the betrayal of the in-group and out-group elected leader to the group member, in order to examine the Social Identity Theory. Participants showed more self-restraint behavior when out-group elected leader showed the betrayal. In contrast, when the in-group elected leader showed the betrayal, participan