期刊文献+

决策权力和社会角色对混合动机冲突决策的影响 被引量:1

THE EFFECTS OF DECISION-MAKING POWER AND SOCIAL ROLE ON MIXED-MOTIVE CONFLICT DECISION-MAKING
下载PDF
导出
摘要 以最后报价谈判问题为实验材料,考察了混合动机冲突情境中决策权力和社会角色的影响。结果表明:(1)决策权力对决策者的决定有显著影响。拥有分配权的决策者倾向于采取竞争策略,拥有要求权的决策者倾向于采取平均分配策略,拥有否决权的决策者倾向于采取合作策略。(2)社会角色对决策者的决定有显著影响。与陌生人角色相比,担任好朋友角色的决策者决定得到的点数明显地更低。 This study used the ultimatum game as experimental material to explore the effect of decision-making power and social role on mixed-motive conflict decision making. The results indicated that decision-making power had significant effect on decision-makers' strategy. Decision-makers with distribution power tended to adopt competi- tive strategy, decision-makers with veto power tended to adopt even strategy, and decision-makers with claim power tended to adopt cooperative strategy. The social role had significant effect on decisions. In comparison with decision-makers on stranger role, the decision-makers on good friend role decided to get significantly less.
出处 《心理与行为研究》 CSSCI 2011年第2期115-119,146,共6页 Studies of Psychology and Behavior
基金 江西师范大学心理学博士后流动站研究基金 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(08JC840007) 江西省教育科学"十一五"规划重点课题(07ZD015)的资助
关键词 混合动机冲突 最后报价谈判 决策权力 社会角色 Mixed-motive conflict, ultimatum negotiation, decision-making power, social role
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Schelling T C. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1960.
  • 2Knight F H. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 1921.
  • 3Gtlth W. On the behavioral approach to distributive justice: A thoery and experimental investigation// Maital S. Applied Behav- ioral Economics. II. New York: New York University Press. 1988, 703-717.
  • 4Mitzkewitz M, Nagel R. Experimental results on ultimatum games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theo- ry, 1993, 22:171-198.
  • 5Larrick R P, Blount S. The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 72:810-825.
  • 6Simon H A. Rational choice and the structure of the environ- ment. Psychological Review, 1956, 63:129-138.
  • 7Simon H A, Kaplan C. Foundations of cognitive science//Posner M I. Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1989.
  • 8Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
  • 9Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 2003, 58 (9) : 697-720.
  • 10Morris M W, Sim D L H, Girotto V. Distinguishing sources of cooperation in the one-round prisoner's dilemma: Evidence for cooperative decisions based on the illusion of control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1998, 34:494-512.

共引文献50

同被引文献10

引证文献1

二级引证文献5

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