异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策的风险偏好

使用中国文化背景下修订的Beisswanger等人的异性交友决策问卷, 采用2种方法操纵自我-他人心理距离, 考察了男女大学生在后果严重性不同的异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策风险偏好的差异。实验1发现, 被试为具体和笼统他人决策时的风险偏好无显著差异, 在后果不严重任务上比后果严重任务上更冒险, 男性比女性更冒险。心理距离与决策者性别的交互作用显著：男性为具体他人决策更冒险, 而女性为笼统他人决策更冒险。实验2发现, 被试为不相似他人比为相似他人决策更冒险, 在后果不严重任务上比在后果严重任务上更冒险, 男性比女性更冒险。后果严重性与决策者性别交互作用显著：男性在后果严重和不严重任务上的风险偏好无显著差异, 而女性在后果不严重任务上比后果严重任务上更冒险。综合两个实验的结果, 可以得出以下结论：相对于具体和笼统他人的区分而言, 相似和不相似他人的区分是一种更加稳定和有效的区分自我-他人心理距离的方法。结合相关研究及理论对结果进行了讨论。

Risk Preference in Making Romantic Relationship Decisions for Others with Different Psychological Distance

Many studies have found self-other differences in decision making, but few studies have focused on the differences in decision making for different others. In fact, people often need to make decisions for different others in everyday life. In this study, two experiments were conducted to examine the differences in risk preference when people made decisions for others with different psychological distance. With the revised romantic relationship decision questionnaire (Beisswanger, Stone, Hupp, & Allgaier, 2003) as a tool, Experiment 1 examined whether there were differences in risk preference when male and female participants made decisions for hypothetical specific others (friends) and abstract others (typical students) with either low or high life-impact scenarios. Experiment 2 examined whether there were differences in risk preference when male and female participants made decisions for similar others (with similar dispositional traits) and dissimilar others (with dissimilar dispositional traits). The results of the two experiments showed that: (1) No significant difference in risk preference was observed between decisions for specific others and decisions for abstract others. However, male participants were more inclined to take risks when they made decisions for specific others than abstract others, whereas female participants did the opposite. (2) In contrast, participants were more risk taking when they made decisions for dissimilar others than for similar others. (3) Participants were more inclined to take risks in low life-impact scenarios than in high life-impact scenarios. (4) Male participants were more risk taking and less susceptible to life-impact manipulation than female participants. These results suggest that individual risk preference is sensitive to not only the self-other difference in general, but also different types of others. Moreover, compared to the distinction of specific/abstract others, the distinction of similar/dissimilar others is more effective in inducing psychological distance between the self and others. To a certain extent, this result supports a social value–based account of psychological distance instead of a construal level-based account.