近年来，“反鸡汤”成为一种普遍的社会心态。与宣扬“成功学”、崇尚积极向上和努力进取的“鸡汤”不同，“反鸡汤”充满着颓废和消极气息。本研究从社会情境和个体差异两个方面切入，试图理解个体喜爱和认同“反鸡汤”的心理原因。具体而言，通过三个研究探索社会流动信念（区分成针对社会状况的一般社会流动信念及针对自身的个人社会流动信念）对“鸡汤”/“反鸡汤”文本喜欢/认同的影响，并考察调节定向在此影响中的调节作用。预研究对典型的“鸡汤”和“反鸡汤”文本的特征及表达手法进行了差异分析，并探索了“反鸡汤”文本的主题；研究1通过问卷研究初步探索了社会流动信念与“鸡汤”和“反鸡汤”文本喜爱和认同之间的相关关系及调节定向的调节作用；研究2通过启动社会流动信念进一步确定变量间的因果联系，并再次检验调节定向的调节作用。主要得出以下结论： 1.一般社会流动信念越高，越认同“鸡汤”文本；个人社会流动信念越高，越喜欢和认同“鸡汤”文本； 2.一般社会流动信念越高，越不喜欢“反鸡汤”文本；个人社会流动信念越高，越不喜欢和认同“反鸡汤”文本； 3.调节定向可以调节社会流动信念与“反鸡汤”文本喜爱之间的关系，社会流动信念（包括一般和个人）与“反鸡汤”文本喜爱之间的负向联结在促进定向个体身上表现得更加明显；而个人社会流动信念与“反鸡汤”文本认同之间的负向联结在预防定向的个体中表现得更加明显。

In recent years, "anti-chicken soup" has become a common social mentality. Unlike “chicken soup,” which promotes success and advocates hard-working, “anti-chicken soup” is full of decadence and negative atmosphere. This study tried to understand the psychological reasons why individuals like and identify “anti-chicken soup” in both social context and individual differences. Specifically, through three studies to explore how the belief of social mobility (differentiated into general belief of social mobility and individual belief of social mobility) influence the attitude about “chicken soup”/ “anti-chicken soup” text and exam a moderating effect of regulatory focus. The pre-studies analyzed the differences in the themes, characteristics, and expressions of the typical “chicken soup” and “anti-chicken soup” texts; Study 1 is a questionnaire surveys aimed at exploring the relationship between general/individual belief of social mobility and the attitude about “chicken soup” and “anti-chicken soup” texts and the moderating effect of regulatory focus; Study 2 manipulated the belief of social mobility, aimed at exploring the causal relationship between these variables, and further exam the moderating effect of regulatory focus: 1. The higher the belief of social mobility (both general and individual), the more they like and agree with the "chicken soup" text; 2. The higher the general belief of social mobility, the less they like the “anti-chicken soup” text; the higher the individual belief of social mobility, the less they like and agree the “anti-chicken soup” text; 3. The regulatory focus can make a moderating effect between the belief of social mobility and the like of anti-chicken soup. The negative relationship between the belief of social mobility (both general and individual) and the like of anti-chicken soup is shown in promotion focus which is even more obvious; however, the negative relationship between the individual belief of social mobility and the identify of “anti-chicken soup” text in prevention focus which is even more obvious.