加工模式对亲社会行为的影响——社会价值取向和代价的作用

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2025.06.04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了解决学界关于直觉加工与深思加工如何影响亲社会行为的问题,本研究采用行为实验方法,系统考察了加工模式、社会价值取向和代价三者的交互效应。结果显示,加工模式对亲社会行为的影响并不是独立的,而是与个体的社会价值取向及其所面临的代价紧密关联。具体来说,在低代价情境中,亲自我取向的人倾向于在直觉加工模式下展现更多的亲社会行为;而在高代价情境中,亲社会取向的人在深思加工模式下更为突显其亲社会行为。此外,对于亲社会取向的个体在低代价情境或亲自我取向的个体在高代价情境,不同加工模式对亲社会行为的影响不明显。这些发现提示,在探讨加工模式与亲社会行为的关系时,不能忽视个体差异和行为代价的重要作用。

关键词: 亲社会行为, 直觉加工, 深思加工, 社会价值取向, 代价

Abstract: There is still controversy regarding whether intuitive processing or reflective processing is more effective in promoting prosocial behavior. To address this dispute, this study investigated the impact of processing mode, social value orientation, and cost on prosocial behavior through behavioral experiments. The results indicate that the relationship between processing mode and prosocial behavior needs to be explained based on the individual’s social value orientation and the cost they face. Individuals with a pro-self orientation exhibit more prosocial behavior when using intuitive processing, but only in situations with low costs. Individuals with a prosocial orientation exhibit more prosocial behavior when using deliberative processing, but only in situations with high costs. Additionally, the impact of different processing modes on prosocial behavior is not significantly different when prosocial individuals face low-cost situations or pro-self individuals face high-cost situations. The study suggests that the relationship between processing mode and prosocial behavior is complex, and understanding individual differences and behavioral costs can help explain this complexity.

Key words: prosocial behavior, intuition, reflective thinking, social value orientation, cost

中图分类号:

B844

李强强, 胡耿丹. 加工模式对亲社会行为的影响——社会价值取向和代价的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 791-798.

LI Qiangqiang, HU Gengdan. The Effect of Processing Mode on Prosocial Behavior—The Roles of Social Value Orientation and Cost[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(6): 791-798.

参考文献

Alós-Ferrer, C. (2018). Adual-process diffusion model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(2), 203-218.
Bago, B., Bonnefon, J.-F., & De Neys, W. (2021). Intuitionrather than deliberation determines selfish and prosocial choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 150(6), 1081-1094.
Chen, F., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making.Nature Communications, 9(1), 3557. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05994-9
Dakin, B. C., Laham, S. M., Tan, N. P. J., & Bastian, B. (2021). Searching for meaning is associated with costly prosociality.PLoS ONE, 16(10), e0258769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258769
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644-658.
Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & van Court, P. (1995). Prosocialdevelopment in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66(4), 1179-1197.
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2018). When good deeds hurt: The potential costs of interpersonal helping and the moderating roles of impression management and prosocial values motives. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 25(3), 339-352.
Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
Fromell, H., Nosenzo, D. & Owens, T. (2020). Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment.Experimental Economics, 23(4), 979-1001.
Hafenbrack, A. C., Cameron, L. D., Spreitzer, G. M., Zhang, C., Noval, L. J., & Shaffakat, S. (2020). Helpingpeople by being in the present: Mindfulness increases prosocial behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 159, 21-38.
Hao, J., Li, W., Li, J., & Liu, Y. (2023). Why are we unwilling to help sometimes? Reconsideration and integration of the attribution-affect model and the arousal: Cost-reward model.Current Psychology, 42(4), 2775-2787.
Haruno, M., Kimura, M., & Frith, C. D. (2014). Activity in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala underlies individual differences in prosocial and individualistic economic choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(8), 1861-1870.
House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Cebioglu, S., Crittenden, A. N.,… Silk, J. B. (2020). Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 36-44.
Joireman, J.A., Kuhlman, D.M., Van Lange, P.A.M., Doi, T. & Shelley, G.P. (2003). Perceived rationality, morality, and power of social choice as a function of interdependence structure and social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 413-437.
Krajbich, I., Hare, T. A., Bartling, B., Morishima, Y., & Fehr, E. (2015). Acommon mechanism underlying food choice and social decisions. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(10), e1004371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004371
Lotito, G., Migheli, M., & Ortona, G. (2013). Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15(2), 123-133.
Mokos, J., Csillag, M. & Scheuring, I. (2023). Communicating the cost of your altruism makes you cool-competitive altruism and sexual selection in a real-life charity situation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 77, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03293-y
Mrkva, K. (2017). Giving, Fast andslow: Reflection increases costly (but not uncostly) charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1052-1065.
Murphy, R., Ackermann, K., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuringsocial value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771-781.
Oguchi, M., Li, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Kiyonari, T., Yamamoto, K., Sugiura, S., & Sakagami, M. (2023). Proselfs depend more on model-based than model-free learning in a non-social probabilistic state-transition task. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27609-0
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 27-65.
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed.Nature, 489(7416), 427-430.
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedingsof the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265(1394), 427-431.
Schuessler, K., Hittle, D., & Cardascia, J. (1978). Measuringresponding desirably with attitude-opinion items. Social Psychology, 41(3), 224-235.
Shearman, S. M., & Yoo, J. H. (2007). “Even a penny will help!”: Legitimization of paltry donation and social proof in soliciting donation to a charitable organization. Communication Research Reports, 24(4), 271-282.
Shi, R., Qi, W., Ding, Y., Liu, C., & Shen, W. (2020). Under what circumstances is helping an impulse? Emergency and prosocial traits affect intuitive prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109828
Shotland, R. L., & Straw, M. K. (1976). Bystander response to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 990-999.
Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2015). Beyondaltruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 43-63.
Spenser, K., Bull, R., Betts, L., & Winder, B. (2020). Underpinning prosociality: Age related performance in theory of mind, empathic understanding, and moral reasoning.Cognitive Development, 56, 100928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100928
Sylwester, K., & Roberts, G. (2010). Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games. Biology Letters, 6(5), 659-662.
Ugurlar, P., Sümer, N., & Posten, A.-C. (2021). The cognitive cost of closeness: Interpersonal closeness reduces accuracy and slows down decision-making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(6), 1007-1018.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2007). Fromgames to giving: Social value orientation Predicts Donations to Noble Causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375-384.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 126-141.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125-141.
VanLange, P. A. M., Otten, W., DeBruin, E. M. N., & 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.
Yan, B., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2022). Motivating themotivationally diverse crowd: Social value orientation and reward structure in crowd idea generation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(4), 1064-1088.
邓章岩, 王栋, 蔡季伦, 姜先勇, 陈作松. (2020). 基于双加工理论的大学生篮球运动员道德判断:抽象推理还是情绪控制. 科学通报, 65(19), 2010-2020.
杜瑶, 汤玉龙, 张芷诺. (2022). 双加工模型视角下的儿童选择性信任. 心理科学, 45(2), 379-385.
洪慧芳, 寇彧, 伍俊辉. (2012). 大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响. 心理发展与教育, 28(5), 487-494.
寇彧, 付马, 马艳. (2004). 初中生认同的亲社会行为的初步研究. 心理发展与教育, 20(4), 43-48.
李爱梅, 颜亮, 王笑天, 马学谦, 李方君. (2015). 时间压力的双刃效应及其作用机制. 心理科学进展, 23(9), 1627-1636.
李强强, 胡佳. (2023). 时间定价启动与主观社会阶层对亲社会行为的影响. 心理发展与教育, 39(3), 360-368.
谢枝文, 王钟慧, 李庆功. (2023-01-05). 道德勇气行为:高风险、高代价的利他行为. 中国社会科学报, p7, 1-2.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	罗玉晗, 徐梓婧, 周晴, 杨政乾, 柯李, 王耘, 陈福美. COVID-19疫情压力对青少年生命史策略的影响及其行为表现[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 398-409.
[2]	游志麒, 郭宇顺, 张陆, 李晓军. 父母冲突与青少年亲社会行为的关系: 人际信任与共情的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 51-59.
[3]	刘倩文, 高晗晶, 王振宏. 亲子关系与CLOCK基因rs1801260多态性对学前儿童亲社会行为的交互影响:性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(5): 625-635.
[4]	常保瑞, 黄江喜, 林培钿, 方建东. 关爱自己,更关爱他人:自我同情的“利他”机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(3): 324-334.
[5]	章洁敏, 陶云, 杨舒涵, 陈睿. 亲社会行为的概念表征及其方法述评[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 298-304.
[6]	银小兰, 周路军, 朱翠英. 学校环境对农村留守儿童亲社会行为的影响:心理资本与生活满意度的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 497-504.
[7]	赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[8]	李强强, 胡佳. 时间定价启动与主观社会阶层对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 360-368.
[9]	雷晓玲, 赵冬梅, 杨文娇, 田晓红. 青少年家庭功能与亲社会行为的关系:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 786-792.
[10]	王斯麒, 赵彬璇, 吴红, 刘伟. 婚姻质量对儿童亲社会行为的影响:父母积极情绪表达和教养行为的链式中介作用及其性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 323-330.
[11]	唐蕾, 刘衍玲, 杨营凯. 亲社会行为的认知过程及脑神经基础[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 437-446.
[12]	马利, 王滔. 残疾儿童心理健康对家长亲职压力的影响:有调节的中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(1): 126-133.
[13]	夏晓彤, 段锦云, 黄辛隐. 错失恐惧对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 344-352.
[14]	李倩倩, 姚力宁, 梁金军, 邢淑芬. 电视暴力对不同外倾性气质学前儿童社会行为的差异化影响——“一般攻击模型”与“催化剂模型”的理论之争[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(5): 545-554.
[15]	张云运, 刘思辰, 任萍, 牛丽丽. 学生学业和行为特征如何影响教师支持？来自个体和圈子层面的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 318-328.