Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2019, Vol. 27 Issue (3): 447-452    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00447
  研究简报 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
权力对延迟选择的影响
李晓明1,2(),蒋松源
1 湖南师范大学认知与人类行为湖南省重点实验室
2 湖南师范大学心理系, 长沙 410081
The influence of power on choice deferral
LI Xiao-Ming1,2(),JIANG Song-Yuan
1 Cognition and Human Behavior Key Laboratory of Hunan Province
2 Department of Psychology, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
全文: PDF(512 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

本研究旨在考察权力对延迟选择的影响, 并探讨决策难度在其中的调节作用以及决策过程的中介作用。两个实验均先操纵个体的权力状态, 然后再请被试完成随后的延迟选择任务。结果发现, 决策难度可调节权力对延迟选择的影响, 当决策困难时, 高权力者具有更低的延迟倾向, 当决策容易时, 权力的影响消失。决策过程的加工变异性可中介权力对延迟选择的影响。结果表明, 低权力者比高权力者具有更高的延迟倾向(尤其当决策困难时), 不同权力水平者在决策过程上的差异或可部分解释此种现象。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
李晓明
蒋松源
关键词 权力延迟选择决策难度决策过程MouselabWEB程序    
Abstract

The present study aimed at exploring the role of power in choice deferral (a subcategory of decision avoidance) by studying the moderating role of choice difficulty (Experiment 1) and the mediating role of decision process (Experiment 2). The results showed that choice difficulty can moderate the effect of power on choice deferral, when there is not a dominating option in the choice options, preference for deferral is more pronounced for powerless individuals than for powerful individuals. Additionally, the variance in the proportion of time spent on each attribute mediated the effect of power on choice deferral. The results indicated that lower power can lead to more choice of deferral options (especially in difficult decisions), and decision processing may play an important role in the effect of power on choice deferral.

Key wordspower    choice deferral    choice difficulty    decision process    MouselabWeb procedure
收稿日期: 2017-12-18      出版日期: 2019-01-22
PACS:  B849:C91  
基金资助:湖南省哲学社会科学基金资助(13YBA220)
通讯作者: 李晓明     E-mail: lixiaoming-2007@sohu.com
引用本文:   
李晓明,蒋松源. (2019). 权力对延迟选择的影响. 心理科学进展, 27(3), 447-452.
LI Xiao-Ming,JIANG Song-Yuan. (2019). The influence of power on choice deferral. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(3), 447-452.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00447      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2019/V27/I3/447
[1] 管延华, 迟毓凯, 戴金浩 . ( 2014). 权力对风险决策偏好的影响. 心理研究, 7( 4), 42-47.
[2] 李晓明, 谢佳 . ( 2012). 偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响机制. 心理学报, 44( 12), 1641-1650.
[3] 钟毅平, 陈潇, 颜小聪 . ( 2013). 个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响. 心理科学, 36( 2), 429- 433.
[4] Anderson C.J . ( 2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129( 1), 139-167.
[5] Dhar R. ( 1996). The effect of decision strategy on the decision to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9( 4), 265-281.
[6] Dhar R., & Nowlis S.M . ( 1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25( 4), 369-384.
[7] Fast N. J., Sivanathan N., Mayer N. D., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117( 2), 249-260.
[8] Galinsky A.D., Gruenfeld D.H, & Magee J.C . ( 2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85( 3), 453-466.
[9] Galinsky A. D., Magee J. C., Gruenfeld D. H., Whitson J. A., & Liljenquist K. A . ( 2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95( 6), 1450-1466.
[10] Hiemer J., & Abele A.E . ( 2012). High power = motivation? Low power = situation? The impact of power, power stability and power motivation on risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 53( 4), 486-490.
[11] Joshi P.D., & Fast N.J . ( 2013). Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science, 24( 4), 432-438.
[12] Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C . ( 2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110( 2), 265-284.
[13] Krijnen J. M. T., Zeelenberg M., & Breugelmans S. M . ( 2015). Decision importance as a cue for deferral. Judgment and Decision Making, 10( 5), 407-415.
[14] Lammers J., Dubois D., Rucker D. D., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2013). Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 4), 776-779.
[15] Lange J. & Krahé B. , ( 2014). The effects of information form and domain-specific knowledge on choice deferral. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43( 3), 92-104.
[16] , Magee J.C., & Galinsky A.D . ( 2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2( 1), 351-398.
[17] Magee J.C., & Smith P.K . ( 2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17( 2), 158-186.
[18] Maner J. K., Gailliot M. T Menzel A. J. & Kunstman J. W. ., ( 2012). Dispositional anxiety blocks the psychological effects of power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38( 11), 1383-1395.
[19] Miyamoto Y., & Ji L.J . ( 2011). Power fosters context- independent, analytic cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37( 11), 1449-1458.
[20] Preacher K.J., & Hayes A.F . ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40( 3), 879-891.
[21] Rassin E., Muris P., Booster E., & Kolsloot I . ( 2008). Indecisiveness and informational tunnel vision. Personality and Individual Differences, 45( 1), 96-102.
[22] Rucker D. D., Galinsky A. D., & Dubois D . ( 2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22( 3), 352-368.
[23] Smith P. K., Dijksterhuis A & Wigboldus D. H. J. ., ( 2008). Powerful people make good decisions even when they consciously think. Psychological Science, 19( 12), 1258-1259.
[24] Smith P.K., & Trope Y. , ( 2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90( 4), 578-596.
[25] Tversky A.& Shafir E. ,( 1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3( 6), 358-361.
[1] 王海侠,贾汇源,孙海龙,李爱梅. 互联网连接性降低自主性的机制与后效[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(11): 1802-1811.
[2] 程南华, 李占星, 朱莉琪.  儿童的社会权力认知及其与社会行为的关系[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 283-293.
[3] 江红艳, 刘邦舜, 孙配贞.  权力感对消费行为的影响及其理论解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(1): 156-168.
[4] 金剑;李晔;陈冬明;郭凯娇. 权力和地位对自利行为的影响及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(5): 878-886.
[5] 王浩;俞国良. 亲密关系中的权力认知[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(4): 639-651.
[6] 宋云嫱;徐瑞珩;邢采. 风险敏感理论:需要驱动风险决策[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(3): 486-499.
[7] 孙红日, Felicia Pratto.  权力基础理论:对应生存需要的权力[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(11): 1982-1991.
[8] 严瑜;何亚男. 领导对建言反应的动机感知作用机制:基于归因理论的阐释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(9): 1457-1466.
[9] 蔡頠;吴嵩;寇彧. 权力对亲社会行为的影响:机制及相关因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(1): 120-131.
[10] 卫旭华;刘咏梅;陈思璇. 组织等级:基本概念及作用机理[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(8): 1467-1479.
[11] 段锦云;卢志巍;沈彦晗. 组织中的权力:概念、理论和效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(6): 1070-1078.
[12] 占小军;李志成;梁雪娇. 顾客欺凌行为:概念、测量、形成与作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(4): 690-701.
[13] 魏子晗, 李兴珊. 决策过程的追踪:基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(12): 2029-2041.
[14] 张阳阳;饶俪琳;梁竹苑;周媛;李纾. 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[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(2): 205-219.
[15] 王雪;蔡頠;孙嘉卿;吴嵩;封子奇;金盛华. 社会心理学视角下权力理论的发展与比较[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(1): 139-149.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn