大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 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。

关键词: 社会价值取向, 信息对称性, 公平决策, 社会困境, 大学生

Abstract: Through two studies,the present research investigated behavioral decision-making and sense of fairness of college students in social dilemmas and the effect of social value orientation was tested,with 85 participants in study 1 and 84 participants in study 2.Results indicated that: (1) Prosocials were more inclined to make fair decisions than proselfs.Compared with asymmetric information condition,symmetric information could promote participants' fair decisions.Moreover,females were more likely to make fair decisions than males.(2) Social value orientation and information symmetry influenced fairness decision-making through the moderating effect of gender.While males' fairness decision-making was only significantly influenced by social value orientation,females' fairness decision-making was only significantly influenced by information symmetry.(3) Social value orientation significantly influenced individuals' tolerance of unfairness.Specifically,prosocials were less tolerated with unfairness than proselfs.(4) Participants were inclined to accept unfair behavior favorable for them but reject unfair behavior unfavorable for them.When faced with unfair behavior favorable for them,prosocials didn't experience stronger emotion of guilty.However,for participants with prosocial and proself orientations,unfair behavior unfavorable for them triggered stronger sense of unfairness,accompanied by anger.

Key words: social value orientation, information symmetry, fairness decision-making, social dilemma, college students

中图分类号:

洪慧芳, 寇彧, 伍俊辉. 大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2012, 28(5): 487-494.

HONG Hui-fang, KOU Yu, WU Jun-hui. Fairness Decision-making of College Students in Social Dilemmas: Effect of Social Value Orientation[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2012, 28(5): 487-494.

参考文献

[1] Anderson,W.D.,& Patterson,M.L.(2008).Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments.The Journal of Social Psychology,148(2),223-246.
[2] Balliet,D.,Li,N.P.,Macfarlan,S.J.,& Van Vugt,M.(2011).Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.Psychological Bulletin,137(6),881-909.
[3] Bogaert,S.,Boone,C.,& Declerck,C.(2008).Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model.British Journal of Social Psychology,47 (3),453-480.
[4] Buchan,N.R.,Croson,R.T.A.,& Solnick,S.(2008).Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,68(3-4),466-476.
[5] Camerer,C.,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators and manners.The Journal of Economic Perspectives,9 (2),209-219.
[6] Dawes,R.M.,& Messick,D.M.(2000).Social dilemmas.International Journal of Psychology,35(2),111-116.
[7] De Cremer,D.,& Van Lange,P.A.M.(2001).Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity.European Journal of Personality,15 (1),5-18.
[8] Deutsch,M.(1958).Trust and suspicion.Journal of Conflict Resolution,2(4),265-279.
[9] Eek,D.,& Grling,T.(2006).Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes.British Journal of Social Psychology,45 (2),321-337.
[10] Eek,D.,& Grling,T.(2008).A new look at the theory of social value orientations: Prosocials neither maximize joint outcome nor minimize outcome differences but prefer equal outcomes.New Issues and Paradigms in Research on Social Dilemmas,10-26.
[11] Gilligan,C.(1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,24-39
[12] Güth,W.,& Huck,S.(1997).From ultimatum bargaining to dictatorship-An experimental study of four games varying in veto power.Metroeconomica,48(3),262-299.
[13] Jaffee,S.,& Hyde,J.S.(2000).Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin,126 (5),703-726.
[14] Komorita,S.S.,& Parks,C.D.(1995).Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction.Annual Review of Psychology,46(1),183-207.
[15] McClintock,C.G.,& Allison,S.T.(1989).Social Value Orientation and Helping Behavior.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,19(4),353-362.
[16] Parks,C.D.(1994).The predictive ability of social values in resource dilemmas and public goods games.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,20(4),431-438.
[17] Platow,M.J.(1994).An evaluation of the social desirability of prosocial self-other allocation choices.The Journal of Social Psychology,134(1),61-68.
[18] Schwieren,C.,& Sutter,M.(2008).Trust in cooperation or ability? An experimental study on gender differences.Economics Letters,99 (3),494-497.
[19] Stouten,J.,De Cremer,D.,& Van Dijk,E.(2005).All is well that ends well,at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation.European Journal of Social Psychology,35(6),767-783.
[20] Van den Bergh,B.,Dewitte,S.,& De Cremer,D.(2006).Are prosocials unique in their egalitarianism? The pursuit of equality in outcomes among individualists.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32(9),1219-1231.
[21] Van Dijk,E.,De Cremer,D.,& Handgraaf,M.J.J.(2004).Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40(6),697-707.
[22] Van Lange,P.A.M.(1999).The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(2),337-349.
[23] Van Lange,P.,Otten,W.,De Bruin,E.,& Joireman,J.A.(1997).Development of prosocial,individualistic,and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(4),733-746.
[24] Van Lange,P.,& Semin-Goossens,A.(1998).The boundaries of reciprocal cooperation.European Journal of Social Psychology,28,847-854.
[25] Van Vugt,M.,Van Lange,P.A.M.,& Meertens,R.M.(1996).Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements.European Journal of Social Psychology,26(3),373-395.
[26] 侯公林,章志量,吴晓山,沈浪泳.(1997).场独立性-依存性认知方式性别差异的实验研究.心理科学,20(4),367-368.
[27] 吴宝沛,寇彧.(2008).西方社会价值取向的研究历程与发展趋势.心理科学进展,16(6),987-992.
[28] 严进,王重鸣.(2000).两难对策中价值取向对群体合作行为的影响.心理学报,32(3),332-336.

相关文章 15

[1]	郭嘉程, 董柔纯, 许放, 徐旋, 牛更枫, 周宗奎. 社会临场感与大学生网络过激行为的关系：双自我意识的并行中介及性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 176-186.
[2]	樊香麟, 崔英锦. 客体化身体意识与女大学生限制性饮食行为的关系：外貌负面评价恐惧和社会文化压力的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 122-131.
[3]	张慧如, 张伟达, 傅王倩, 邓敏, 彭苏浩, 李玉. 孤独感对创造性倾向的影响：无聊倾向和焦虑情绪的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 132-141.
[4]	何安明, 张钰睿, 惠秋平. 大学生感恩与社会幸福感的关系:手机冷落行为的中介作用和负性生活事件的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 505-512.
[5]	杜秀芳, 武玉玺, 徐政, 袁晓倩, 陈功香. 金钱启动与道德认同对大学生道德伪善的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 342-349.
[6]	喻昊雪, 李卉, 王福兴. 大学生公正世界信念与学业倦怠的关系:应对方式与无聊倾向的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 391-401.
[7]	曾子豪, 彭丽仪, 詹林, 刘双金, 欧阳晓优, 丁道群, 黎志华, 胡义秋, 方晓义. 儿童期受虐对大学生抑郁症状的影响:主观幸福感的中介和基因的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 276-285.
[8]	曹瑞琳, 梅松丽, 梁磊磊, 李传恩, 张莹. 感恩与大学生网络成瘾的关系:核心自我评价和生命意义感的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 286-294.
[9]	陈子循, 李金文, 王雨萌, 刘霞. 累积环境风险与大学生自伤的关系:情绪调节策略的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 109-120.
[10]	郑爽, 刘红瑞, 李静, 席雨, 姚梅林. 主动性人格与大学生创业准备行为的关系:创业意向的中介效应与创业社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 813-821.
[11]	王浩, 俞国良. 大学生依恋焦虑与抑郁的关系:恋爱中关系攻击和关系质量的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 879-885.
[12]	朱黎君, 杨强, 叶宝娟, 陈智楠, 张丽. 自然联结对大学生抑郁的影响:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 886-893.
[13]	张宝生, 李鑫, 李新野, 张庆普. 主观规范对大学生志愿者志愿工作投入的影响机制研究——一个链式双重中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 658-666.
[14]	李松, 陈旭, 冉光明, 张琪. 被动性社交网站使用与社交焦虑：反刍思维和自我建构的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 720-728.
[15]	蔺姝玮, 孙炳海, 黄嘉昕, 肖威龙, 李伟健. 共情对广义互惠的影响：自我-他人重叠的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 475-484.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed