社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制

以往关于为自己和代他人决策的冒险行为研究结果不一致, 这可能是因为以往的研究没有考虑决策情境和决策者人际特质等因素对于决策行为的影响。社会价值取向(social value orientation, SVO)是一种典型的人际特质, 是个体在对自我和他人资源分配时所表现出的社会偏好, 通常分为亲社会者和亲自我者。为探究SVO对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制, 采用为自己和陌生人分别完成多轮混合赌博游戏的任务。结果发现亲自我比亲社会者代他人决策更冒险。用模型量化的损失厌恶和对潜在损失的敏感度部分中介了自我-他人风险决策差异, 但只有对他人潜在损失的敏感度部分中介自我-他人决策的SVO效应。说明SVO会影响自我-他人风险决策, 且该效应可以通过对他人利益的关心程度起作用, 所以在自我-他人风险决策的研究中应将SVO这一决策者的人际特质因素考虑在内。     

“利益最大化”的伦理审视

“利益最大化”是市场经济主体的普遍追求。尊重人们追求各自利益的最大化,是市场经济体制的特征所在。追求利益最大化是有严格界限的,其界限就在于人们只能在不损害他人利益最大化和社会利益最大化的合理性范围之内实现各自利益的最大化,也就是要求人们以正当的行为方式实现各自利益最大化。     

生态环境危机中的利益问题思考

当前的生态环境危机 ,主要是由于人与人之间的利益冲突造成的。利益冲突是当代生态环境危机的实质 ,是人们的经济利益冲突在自然领域的反映。它表现了人们在生态环境方面的目前利益与长远利益、民族和国家利益与全人类利益、局部利益与整体利益、个人利益与社会利益的冲突。但是无论哪种利益 ,在这个问题上进行善恶评价的标准只有一个 ,这就是社会整体利益和全人类的共同利益     

任务框架和社会距离对风险决策的影响:来自ERP的证据

实验运用金钱博弈任务,从行为上探讨了社会距离与任务框架对决策结果的影响,并结合ERP技术进一步探讨了社会距离对风险决策过程的影响。结果发现:正性框架下自我决策时风险选项选择率显著高于为他人决策;负性框架下自我决策时风险选择率显著低于为他人决策;社会距离所诱发的N350、P300和LNP等晚期成分波幅出现明显的分离。N350和LNP成分主要与决策过程中个体的冲突抑制有关,主要表现为为陌生人决策会诱发负走向较大的N350波幅和LNP波幅,而对于正走向的P300成分则发现为朋友决策时的波幅较大。结果表明社会距离影响决策中的再评价过程。     

“面子”定义探新

面子研究是中国国民性研究的基础性内容。通过面子现象的要素归纳和面子行为的归因分析,借鉴面子既有定义的合理思想,给出了全新的面子定义。面子是个体藉由行为或社会性资源展现其自我价值,寻求他人的确认且受到意外的认同时,凸现于个体内心的自我价值感与相应体验。面子实质上是个体对自我在他人心中的价值与地位的关注,自我价值是面子的内核,社会性资源是面子的象征。自我价值的认同诉求与回应的冲突即评价冲突是面子产生的直接诱因。个体在交往中表现“相符行为”或允许他人利用自己的社会性资源是赢得面子的基本途径。确认个体价值的“他人取向”是面子现象的社会根源。     

论临床代理决策中的“患者最佳利益原则”

对于无行为能力患者的代理决策,传统的预先指令与替代决策模式已暴露其局限性,如误读患者利益或者掺杂代理人的利益.基于最佳利益原则的决策模式能最大限度维护他们的利益,医学最佳利益与拓展的最佳利益是其两种模式.前者将生命质量作为核心要素;后者还包括患者个体的价值观与宗教信仰等个体利益.在我国社会语境中,应当实施医学最佳利益标准.在临床实践中,判断最佳利益依然遭遇不少障碍,包括理性人视角、代理人情感投射等.因此,需要合理的医疗判断、明确其构成要素、设置必要的程序以及完善的法律制度.     

复杂情境下不同角度及思维方式的决策表现差异:决策视角-心理距离的作用

本研究运用2个行为实验探讨了复杂情境下自我决策、为他人决策和预期他人决策在无意识思维方式和有意识思维方式下的决策表现差异。实验1发现复杂情境中无意识思维方式下,自我决策和为他人决策的决策表现显著优于预期他人决策,自我决策和为他人决策表现没有显著差异。实验2发现复杂情境中有意识思维时,在陌生人条件下,为他人决策表现分数显著高于自我决策与预期他人决策,自我决策和预期他人决策表现无显著差异;在朋友条件下,为他人决策和预期他人决策的决策表现显著优于自我决策,为他人决策和预期他人决策表现无显著差异。研究结果支持了本文提出的决策视角-心理距离作用假设(the Perspective-Distance Effect Hypothesis,PDEH)。     

决策中社会价值取向的理论与测评方法

传统经济学决策理论强调利己性假设, 认为个体是理性的并由个人利益所驱动的。但是, 个体在相依情境中的社会动机要比利己性假设更为复杂, 具有较大的个体差异。社会价值取向是指个体在相依情境中对自己收益和他人收益分配的特定偏好, 是一个用来描述个体对他人利益关注程度的个体差异的概念。本文回顾了测量社会价值取向的三优势测量、环形测验和滑块测验等方法, 强调了不同测评方法的优点与不足, 并简要总结了决策、社会认知、共情、亲社会行为等领域内相关的社会价值取向研究。未来的研究则需要探索社会价值取向与不同社会因素的交互作用, 以及不同社会价值取向个体的神经机制等方面的研究。     

人心难读：冲突中的预测偏差及其心理机制

冲突事件是指当事某方采取的行动可能对另一方造成直接且明显的伤害、进而导致紧张关系的事件。拒绝他人请求、反驳他人观点、与他人一起参与竞争等皆有可能诱发冲突。有效的冲突管理有助于减少冲突带来的消极影响,发挥冲突潜在的积极影响。但是,广泛存在的预测偏差严重妨碍了冲突管理。因此,欲解决冲突管理的难题,必须探究人类在冲突中的预测偏差。现有研究多着眼于非冲突中的预测偏差,采取信息驱动的视角,将预测偏差的主要原因归结为人受限于认知上的不足,因而认为预测偏差是一种错误,主要关注其消极影响。然而,现有研究忽视了冲突中的预测偏差的独特性。冲突中,预测偏差可能受人的自我保护动机和避免人际伤害动机驱动自上而下地产生,并具有一定的适应性。 基于对现有研究的总结,本项目旨在突破当前的理论困境,探讨冲突事件中预测偏差的独特规律及其心理机制与后果,具体而言包括四大目标：(1)聚焦冲突事件中的预测偏差,并以对应的非冲突事件作为对照,揭示预测偏差在冲突中独特的表现形式,提出冲突事件的“偏差放大效应”,即与非冲突事件相比,在冲突事件中,预测偏差的程度会被放大,例如反驳他人者对他人的体验产生较大的错误预测,而赞同他人者则相对能更准确地预测他人的体验;(2)从动机性认知视角探讨“偏差放大效应”的心理成因,揭示“负性驱动机制”,即人因为担忧冲突事件的负性结果,出于自我保护的目的而在注意、知觉、思维等认知加工环节把冲突事件的潜在结果加工得更加消极,作最坏的打算以应对冲突;(3)考察“负性驱动机制”下预测偏差导致的后果,如使人采取回避行为,具体表现为人际退缩和不作为等;(4)设计有效的去偏差方案,以直接和间接两种方式改变预测者的动机,进而改变其认知加工,减弱预测偏差。 通过完成以上目标,本项目将构建解释冲突事件中预测偏差的理论模型。该理论模型立足于动机性认知的视角,从现象层面揭示“偏差放大效应”,将负性偏差理论拓展到人际过程中;从机制层面突破信息驱动视角的局限,揭示动机性认知在人际互动中的指导作用;从思想层面基于生态理性观辩证分析预测偏差的适应性作用,促使研究者重新审视“何为理性”。该模型弥补了以往研究忽视动机对预测偏差的影响这一不足,并将预测偏差和负性偏差、动机性认知等理论结合起来,形成了更完整的理论框架。本项目有助于推动对预测偏差的全面理解,发展行为决策理论,帮助公众和社会治理者准确预测他人,提升冲突管理能力,提高决策质量。     

生命伦理中的利益限度分析

法律或道德律令的最终目的都是为了消解利益冲突问题,怎样解决利益冲突,也一直是现实生活中的关注焦点.寻求最佳的解决利益冲突的方式、方法,需要一个每个人都可以接受并能够认真遵守的行为法则,而这个法则的确立需要人们对冲突中所涉及的利益边界有一个深入地分析,即对矛盾冲突进行利益限度分析.目前对我国影响较大的生命伦理学原则有"二原则说"、"四原则说"、"五原则说"等[1]."五原则说"即生命价值原则、善良原则、公正原则、说实话原则和个人自由原则.这些原则不同程度地体现了利益限度原则,突出地表现为利益自主、利益互赢、人人有利的特征,此三者即为利益限度的整体形态.     

大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响

通过两项研究考查大学生在社会困境中的行为决策及公平感体验,检验社会价值取向的影响作用,有效被试分别为85名和84名。结果表明:(1)亲社会者比亲自我者更倾向做公平决策;信息对称比不对称条件更促进被试做公平决策;女生比男生更倾向做公平决策。(2)性别在社会价值取向与信息对称性对公平决策的影响中起调节作用,社会价值取向显著影响男生的公平决策,信息对称性显著影响女生的公平决策。(3)社会价值取向显著影响个体对不公平的容忍度,亲社会者更不容忍不公平行为。(4)对于利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向接受,亲社会者并不比亲自我者体验到更强的内疚情绪;对于不利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向拒绝,且产生较强的不公平感及气愤情绪。     

Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments

The authors assessed the impact that social value orientations--prosocial (i.e., concerned about outcomes for both oneself and others) versus proself (i.e., concerned about one's own outcome only)--had on fairness judgments in a non-negotiation setting. The results indicated that prosocials generally formed fairness judgments in a manner suggested by equity theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw an equal outcome as fairer than a favorable or unfavorable outcome. The fairness determinations of proselfs, however, tended to follow the tenets of self-interest theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw a favorable outcome as fairer than an unfavorable outcome. Contrary to self-interest theory, proselfs did not find a favorable outcome fairer than an equal outcome. These findings indicate that social value orientations differentially affect the evaluation of outcome information in the formation of fairness judgments.     

THE ILLUSION OF MORALITY AS SELF-INTEREST:

Abstract— One reason for people's voluntary cooperation in social dilemmas, or altruistic behavior in general, may be their belief that altruism pays off in terms of long-run self-interest. Although this is often true, it is typically false in large-scale social dilemmas among strangers. In three questionnaire studies, subjects endorsed this self-interest illusion frequently for large-scale dilemmas, such as over-fishing and pollution, in which the benefits of cooperation are delayed.     

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or not they were granted or denied voice in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed that the effects of voice versus no-voice on fairness-based perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions were significantly more pronounced for individuals with proself orientations than for individuals with prosocial orientations. These findings were extended in Study 4, a field study in which perceived procedural justice was a stronger predictor of satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors among proselfs than among prosocials. These findings suggest that procedural justice effects can be accounted for by self-oriented motives or needs, rather than prosocial motives that are often conceptualized as being associated with justice.     

睾酮与人类决策行为

睾酮是一种类固醇激素, 主要的雄性激素之一。在神经科学与神经内分泌学领域中, 早期研究发现睾酮会对人类的攻击性、社会交往、冲动性等方面产生一定的影响; 后来心理学研究者开始关注睾酮与决策之间的关系, 包括社会性决策的信任、合作、利他与竞争方面以及经济性决策的风险决策。多项研究显示, 睾酮的水平与经济性决策中的风险寻求行为呈正相关关系; 在社会性决策领域中, 高睾酮水平的个体会表现出更高的攻击性、支配性和公平性行为, 同时表现出更低的人际信任。然而这些研究结果也存在难以重复验证的现象, 需要更多的研究探寻可能影响睾酮与决策的其他因素。未来对睾酮与决策的研究可以关注睾酮与消费决策领域、探寻青少年睾酮水平与社会行为的关系以及临床应用等。     

Is Political Conservatism Adaptive? Reinterpreting Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation as Evolved,Sociofunctional Strategies

The Dual Process Model (DPM) explains prejudice and political conservatism as functions of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Duckitt, 2001). From an evolutionary perspective, such orientations may represent specific adaptations to coalitional competition in the ancestral environment (Sinn & Hayes, 2016). Supporting this view, recent research suggests the two orientations represent divergent strategies, with RWA pursuing an honest‐cooperator strategy and SDO a deceptive, cooperation‐mimicking strategy (Heylen & Pauwels, 2015). In two studies, we examine additional evidence for an adaptationist interpretation of DPM. Utilizing life history theory, Study 1 finds that RWA reflects the predicted “slow” strategy by endorsing planning and control, investment in family relationships, altruism, and religiosity. In contrast, SDO reflects a “fast” strategy by devaluing planning and control, secure relationships, and altruism. Utilizing rank management theory, Study 2 finds that RWA reflects a prosocial orientation, endorsing coalition building and social networking while rejecting deception and manipulation. In contrast, SDO reflects an exploitive orientation, rejecting coalition building and networking but endorsing ruthless self‐advancement and deceptive tactics. These findings support an adaptationist revision of RWA to recognize its prosocial, honest‐cooperator dimension and of SDO to recognize proself, “dark” tactics seeking power within groups.     

Changes in Negative Reciprocity as a Function of Age

Standard economic models assume people exclusively pursue material self‐interests in social interactions. However, people exhibit social preferences; that is, they base their choices partly on the outcomes others obtained in a social interaction. People care about fairness, and reciprocity affects behavior. This study examines the differences in negative reciprocity (costly punishment for unfair divisions) as a function of age. Sixty‐one kindergarteners (5‐year‐olds), 53 second graders (8‐year‐olds), and 57 sixth graders (12‐year‐olds) played a dictator game or a mini–ultimatum game either with a human proposer or with a random machine that determined the division between the two players. By keeping the divisions between the players constant and varying the source of the unfair proposal, we were able to differentiate between reciprocity‐based and inequality‐aversion preferences. We found that kindergarteners proposed and accepted unfair divisions regardless of the source of the offer, behaving according to the standard economic model. Children in the sixth grade tended to reject unfair offers from a human proposer but accept unfair divisions from a random device, indicating the emergence of negative reciprocity preferences by age eight (and contrary to inequality aversion). Children at this age also tended to give more fair offers in the ultimatum game than in the dictator game, indicating the emergence of strategic thinking. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: the benefits of generosity

Interpersonal misunderstanding is often rooted in noise, or discrepancies between intended and actual outcomes for an interaction partner due to unintended errors (e.g., not being able to respond to an E-mail because of a local network breakdown). How can one effectively cope with noise in social dilemmas, situations in which self-interest and collective interests are conflicting? Consistent with hypotheses, the present research revealed that incidents of noise exert a detrimental effect on level of cooperation when a partner follows strict reciprocity (i.e., tit for tat) but that this effect can be overcome if a partner behaves somewhat more cooperatively than the actor did in the previous interaction (i.e., tit for tat plus 1). Also, when noise was present, tit for tat plus 1 elicited greater levels of cooperation than did tit for tat, thereby underscoring the benefits of adding generosity to reciprocity in coping with noise in social dilemmas. The Discussion outlines implications of the present work for theories focusing on self-presentation and attribution, communication, and trust and prorelationship behavior.     

Why promises and threats need each other

Despite the pervasive use of promises and threats in social life, very little research has been devoted to examining the effectiveness of these interpersonal tactics in promoting cooperation in social dilemmas. Based on the Goal‐Prescribes‐Rationality principle, we hypothesized that cooperation should be most strongly enhanced when promises and threats are communicated in combination, rather than in isolation. Also, we hypothesized that the combination of promises and threats should be especially effective among individuals with prosocial rather than proself orientations. Two studies provided good evidence for the latter hypothesis, in that the combination of promises and threats was only effective in people with prosocial orientations, people who are concerned with equality and collective interest. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Local Identity and the Role of Individual Differences in the Use of Natural Resources: The Case of Water Consumption1

A field study assessed the role of social value orientation (SVO) and identification with the local community on water conservation behavior in Italy. Participants (N = 758) completed a self‐reported questionnaire, during summer and Easter time. It was expected that SVO and local identification would affect cooperation in conserving water resources. Consistent with the hypotheses, the highest levels of voluntary cooperation were detected among prosocial persons with high local identity, while the lowest levels of cooperation were detected among proself persons with low local identity. Other factors (e.g., perception of local authority's legitimacy, place of residence, severity of water scarcity condition) did not affect the hypothesized interaction. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.