回报谨慎对谈判过程和谈判结果的影响

回报谨慎是人们害怕在人际关系中被他人利用的一种信念。研究考察了回报谨慎对谈判者的动机倾向、谈判行为及谈判结果的影响。184人组成92个两人小组参加了一项模拟商业谈判,谈判前研究者成功地进行了回报谨慎的操纵,谈判结束后,参加谈判的人完成谈判协议和谈判后问卷。研究者假设,低回报谨慎的谈判者比高回报谨慎的谈判者在谈判中更可能持有合作倾向、更多地与谈判对手分享信息,研究者还预测回报谨慎与谈判双方的联合收益以及谈判后对谈判对手的看法都有关系。研究结果支持了上述假设。研究对从事商业谈判的人具有实际意义。     

阅读过程中眼动特征的发展研究

对国内外有关阅读过程中眼动特征的发展研究进行了综述。国外在该领域的研究大致经历了三个阶段,而国内的有关研究虽然起步较晚,但却取得了不少研究成果,对相关内各进行了扼要的介绍,最后作者对阅读过程眼动特征的发展研究发表了自己的看法。     

整合模型还是占优启发式模型? 从齐当别模型视角进行的检验

实验从齐当别模型的视角,通过对决策过程反应时的考察分别对以累积预期理论(cumulative prospect theory)为代表的整合模型和启发式模型家族的重要成员--占优启发式模型(priority heuristic)--进行检验。结果表明,决策过程反应时并未随着占优启发式模型所假定的决策步骤的增加而变慢;也未随着选项之间整体值差值的变大而变快;模糊决策过程的反应时反而快于风险决策过程的反应时。无论是以累积预期理论为代表的整合模型还是占优启发式模型均不能满意地描述和解释人们的实际决策过程,而齐当别模型则能解释大部分实验结果。文章建议多角度、多指标探讨人们的决策过程,检验、修改、完善,以及建立新的启发式模型或决策过程模型(process model),以增进对人们如何进行风险决策的理解。     

Giving,Fast and Slow: Reflection Increases Costly (but Not Uncostly) Charitable Giving

Are people intuitively generous or stingy? Does reflection make people more willing to give generous amounts to charity? Findings across the literature are mixed, with many studies finding no clear relationship between reflection and charitable giving (e.g., Hauge, Brekke, Johansson, Johansson‐Stenman, & Svedsäter, 2016 ; Tinghög et al., 2016 ), while others find that reflection negatively affects giving (e.g., Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007 ), and still others find that reflection is positively associated with giving (e.g., Lohse, Goeschl, & Diederich, 2014 ). I demonstrate that reflection consistently increases costly giving to charity. In Study 1, people were initially reluctant to give costly amounts of money to charity, but those who reflected about the decision were more willing to give. In Studies 2–3, I isolated the role of costly stakes by randomly assigning people to either an uncostly donation (Are people intuitively generous or stingy? Does reflection make people more willing to give generous amounts to charity? Findings across the literature are mixed, with many studies finding no clear relationship between reflection and charitable giving (e.g., Hauge, Brekke, Johansson, Johansson‐Stenman, & Svedsäter, 2016 ; Tinghög et al., 2016 ), while others find that reflection negatively affects giving (e.g., Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007 ), and still others find that reflection is positively associated with giving (e.g., Lohse, Goeschl, & Diederich, 2014 ). I demonstrate that reflection consistently increases costly giving to charity. In Study 1, people were initially reluctant to give costly amounts of money to charity, but those who reflected about the decision were more willing to give. In Studies 2–3, I isolated the role of costly stakes by randomly assigning people to either an uncostly donation ($0.40) or costly donation condition (e.g., $100), and randomly assigning them to decide under time pressure or after reflecting. Reflection increased their willingness to give costly amounts, but did not influence their willingness to give uncostly amounts. Similarly, the relationship between decision time and giving was positive when the stakes were costly but was relatively flat when the stakes were uncostly (Study 4). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

风险决策过程验证：补偿/非补偿模型之争的新认识与新证据

风险决策是人类赖以生存和发展的重大决策。如何进行风险决策是人类不断认识和改造世界过程中遇到的未解之谜。主流风险理论认为, 风险决策是一个补偿性的、期望值最大化的过程; 而非主流的风险理论则认为, 风险决策是非补偿性的, 并不遵循期望法则所假设的加权求和等过程。这一谜团为何一直没有得以破解, 或许是因为我们未找到揭示其心理过程的令人信服的证据。近10年来, 我们针对风险决策过程, 借助行为实验、眼动记录法、事件相关电位、功能磁共振成像等技术, 系统探索风险决策的心理和神经机制, 为回答“风险决策是否遵循补偿性规则”这一问题提供了汇聚性证据。本文依据期望法则所假设的概率函数推导、加权过程、加权求和过程、总分最大化等步骤, 对这些研究进行梳理与回顾, 以期加深人们对风险决策机制的理解, 并为建立、健全与风险决策相关的政策、法律法规提供理论依据。     

大学生面孔信任评价的自动化加工

本研究以40名大学生为研究对象,通过内隐加工和内隐记忆的方法探讨面孔信任评价是否为自动加工。结果表明,在外显记忆任务下,大学生在三种可信度面孔的再认成绩两两之间差异显著,其中不可信任面孔再认正确率最高,反应最快;在内隐记忆任务下,不可信任面孔的再认成绩最好,且反应最快。这些结果说明,个体可以依据陌生面孔的可信度对面孔进行自动加工,且对不可信任面孔最为敏感。     

Group process in Jungian analytic training and institute life

Group process experience for analytic candidates is a neglected dimension of training, and receives little attention in the analytic literature. Jung observed group dynamics, but he never studied them closely, attending instead to the psychology of the individual. Unconscious currents in small groups have been studied by others, most notably by Wilfred Bion, and there are similarities between his theories of the group unconscious and Jung's theories of complexes. Experiential and didactic seminars in group process were added to the analytic curriculum at the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco in the early 1990s, leading to changes in the group dynamic of trainees and analysts alike. A discussion of the theories of Bion and Jung are followed by a report on our experiences of facilitating group process for analytic candidates. We give quotes from candidates and analyst members to illustrate the group process and its effects. The need for further study to develop a uniquely Jungian perspective on the unconscious structure and dynamics of the group is suggested.     

Decision making and confidence given uncertain advice

We study human decision making in a simple forced-choice task that manipulates the frequency and accuracy of available information. Empirically, we find that people make decisions consistent with the advice provided, but that their subjective confidence in their decisions shows 2 interesting properties. First, people's confidence does not depend solely on the accuracy of the advice. Rather, confidence seems to be influenced by both the frequency and accuracy of the advice. Second, people are less confident in their guessed decisions when they have to make relatively more of them. Theoretically, we develop and evaluate a type of sequential sampling process model—known as a self-regulating accumulator—that accounts for both decision making and confidence. The model captures the regularities in people's behavior with interpretable parameter values, and we show its ability to fit the data is not due to excessive model complexity. Using the model, we draw conclusions about some properties of human reasoning under uncertainty.