期刊文献+

解释水平视角下的自己-他人决策差异 被引量:93

Self-Other Decision Making Difference: A Construal Level Perspective
下载PDF
导出
摘要 研究基于解释水平理论,考察自己决策和为他人提供建议是否存在认知和偏好上的差异。实验一采用2(自己决策/为他人建议)×2(价值:高/低)×2(可行性:高/低)被试间设计,165名被试代表自己或他人评价选项的吸引力。实验二采用3×2混合设计,81名被试代表自己、相似或不相似他人,为"高价值-低可行"和"低价值-高可行"两选项出价。结果支持了"自己-他人决策差异":自己决策比为他人提建议在更大程度上受可行性高低的影响,更为偏爱可行性高的选项;人际相似性能在一定程度上缩小上述差异。 For most real-life decisions, people either seek for others' advice or act as advisors. From the perspective of Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), deciding for oneself versus others involves different cognitive processes, and thus leads to divergent preference and decisions. Others, compared to oneself, are psychologically distant. Therefore, people advising for others tend to construct the decision in terms of its end-state or outcome (i.e. desirability aspects); when evaluating personal decisions, however, people will attend to the more specific process to achieve that outcome (i.e. feasibility aspects). Using scenarios, the present study addresses the above issue. Across the two experiments, participants made decisions about supermarket coupons, with various desirability (face value) and feasibility (shopping convenience) combinations. Study 1 investigated the difference in preference when deciding for oneself versus others. 165 participants were presented with four types of coupons along desirability (high/low) and feasibility (high/low) dimensions, and then they made decisions either for themselves or someone else. As expected, the self-other decision making difference emerged. While personal decision makers were highly sensitive to feasibility, advisors paid less attention to these low-level aspects. However, such difference only held in low-desirability condition. In Study 2, similarity was introduced to reduce the psychological distance between oneself and others. Two "mixed" alternatives were constructed with either high desirability and low feasibility or low desirability and high feasibility. 81 participants jointly evaluated the two types of coupons and then indicated their willingness to pay for each of them. Results replicated the self-other decision making difference. Compared to personal decision makers, advisors showed stronger preference toward the high-desirability alternative, with less sensitivity to the feasibility aspects. Meanwhile, advice made for similar others (versus dissimilar counterparts) seemed more consistent with personal decisions. The results supported the self-other decision making difference. Interpersonal distance, as a form of psychological distance, exerts significant influence on the cognitive representation and decision making process. The implications of these findings for social distance, advice giving and taking were discussed.
出处 《心理学报》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2011年第1期11-20,共10页 Acta Psychologica Sinica
基金 国家自然科学基金重大研究计划培育项目"危机中期望差异效应所导致的风险沟通障碍及其策略研究"资助(基金号:90924018)
关键词 解释水平理论 自己-他人决策差异 建议者 人际相似性 construal level theory self-other decision making advisor interpersonal similarity
  • 相关文献

参考文献27

  • 1Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609-622.
  • 2Bonaccio, S., & Dalai, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.
  • 3Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475--482.
  • 4Byrne, D. -(1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
  • 5Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
  • 6Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Oxford: Wiley.
  • 7Kim, H., & John, D. R. (2008). Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 116-126.
  • 8Kray, L. J. (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 82-106.
  • 9Kray, L., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I'll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 207-217.
  • 10Krueger, J. L. (2003). Return of the ego-self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: Comment on Karniol (2003). Psychological Review, 110, 585-590.

二级参考文献47

  • 1Bonaccio, S., & Dalai, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.
  • 2Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). The use of experts in complex decision-making: a paradigm for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181-195.
  • 3Budescu, D. V., & Rantilla, A. K. (2000). Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. Acta Psychologica, 104, 371-398.
  • 4Budescu, D. V., RantiUa, A. K., Yu, H., & Karelitz, T. K. (2003). The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 178-194.
  • 5Druckman, J. N. (2001). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,17, 62-82.
  • 6Faro, D., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2006). Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others' preferences under risk. Management Science, 52, 529-541.
  • 7Fischer, I., & Harvey, N. (1999). Combining forecasts: what information do judges need to outperform the simple average? International dournal of Forecasting, 15, 227-246.
  • 8Gardner, P. H., & Berry, D. C. (1995). The effect of different forms of advice on the control of a simulated complex system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 55-79.
  • 9Gino, F. (2008). Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 234-245.
  • 10Gino, F., & Moore, D. A. (2007). Effects of task difficulty on use of advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 21-35.

共引文献20

同被引文献1048

引证文献93

二级引证文献602

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部