Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2020, Vol. 28 Issue (5): 746-751    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00746
     研究简报 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
网约车场景中声誉和面孔可信度对女性信任判断的影响以及直觉性思维的调节作用
李庆功(), 王震炎, 孙捷元, 师妍
浙江师范大学心理系, 金华 321004
The influence of reputation and face trustworthiness on women’s trust judgment in car-hailing scene and the moderating effect of intuitive thinking
LI Qinggong(), WANG Zhenyan, SUN Jieyuan, SHI Yan
Department of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, China
全文: PDF(830 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

以58名女性为研究对象, 用网约车场景来考察声誉和面孔可信度对其信任判断的影响, 并探讨直觉性思维的调节作用。结果表明声誉和面孔可信度会影响女性在选乘网约车时的信任判断, 她们更愿意信任声誉良好和面孔可信度高的司机; 相比低直觉性思维女性而言, 声誉对高直觉性思维女性的信任判断影响较小, 而面孔可信度对高直觉女性的信任判断影响较大。

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
李庆功
王震炎
孙捷元
师妍
关键词 信任决策声誉面孔直觉性思维网约车    
Abstract

The present study (N = 58) investigated the influence of reputation and face trustworthiness on women’s trust judgment as well as the moderating effect of intuitive thinking by setting up the scene of car-hailing. The results showed that reputation and face trustworthiness could influence women’s trust judgment of car-hailing choices. In other words, they were more likely to trust drivers with good reputation and trustworthy face. Reputation had less influence on women’s trust judgment in high intuitive thinking group as compared to low intuitive thinking group, while face trustworthiness had more influence on trust judgment of women with high intuitive thinking.

Key wordstrust decision    reputation    face    intuitive thinking    car-hailing
收稿日期: 2019-09-24      出版日期: 2020-03-27
分类号:  B849:C91  
通讯作者: 李庆功     E-mail: liqinggong@zjnu.cn
引用本文:   
李庆功, 王震炎, 孙捷元, 师妍. (2020). 网约车场景中声誉和面孔可信度对女性信任判断的影响以及直觉性思维的调节作用. 心理科学进展, 28(5), 746-751.
LI Qinggong, WANG Zhenyan, SUN Jieyuan, SHI Yan. (2020). The influence of reputation and face trustworthiness on women’s trust judgment in car-hailing scene and the moderating effect of intuitive thinking. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(5), 746-751.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00746      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2020/V28/I5/746
  乘车意愿示例图
直觉性思维 低面孔可信度 高面孔可信度
低声誉 中声誉 高声誉 低声誉 中声誉 高声誉
0.52 ± 1.06 3.59 ± 1.62 4.55 ± 0.78 0.93 ± 1.28 3.97 ± 1.50 4.90 ± 0.31
0.83 ± 1.31 2.93 ± 1.67 3.97 ± 1.43 1.76 ± 1.88 4.00 ± 1.13 4.59 ± 0.98
总计 0.67 ± 1.19 3.26 ± 1.66 4.26 ± 1.18 1.34 ± 1.65 3.98 ± 1.31 4.74 ± 0.74
  不同乘车条件下被试乘车意愿情况(M ± SD)
  直觉性思维对声誉效应的调节作用
注:*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
  直觉性思维对面孔可信度效应的调节作用
注:*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
1 陈欣, 叶浩生 . ( 2009). 行为博弈视野下信任研究的回顾. 心理科学, 32( 3), 636-639.
2 洪名勇, 钱龙 . ( 2014). 信任、声誉及其内在逻辑. 贵州大学学报(社会科学版), 32( 1), 34-39.
3 李彬, 徐富明, 王伟, 张慧, 罗寒冰 . ( 2015). 决策的加工过程及个体差异: 模糊痕迹理论视角. 心理科学进展, 23( 2), 316-324.
4 李延喜, 吴笛, 肖峰雷, 姚宏 . ( 2010). 声誉理论研究述评. 管理评论, 22( 10), 3-11.
5 李易尚, 朱双洋 . ( 2018). 守住网约车的安全底线. 人民法治, ( 15), 94-95.
6 刘国芳, 辛自强 . ( 2011). 间接互惠中的声誉机制: 印象、名声、标签及其传递. 心理科学进展, 19( 2), 233-242.
7 施丽芳, 廖飞, 丁德明 . ( 2012). 个人声誉关注作为心理不确定的缓解器: 程序公平/合作关系下的实证研究. 管理世界, ( 12), 97-114.
8 文跃兰 . ( 2012). 大学生理性—经验思维方式的个体差异及其与社会问题解决的关系(硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学, 长沙.
9 于会会, 徐富明, 黄宝珍, 文桂婵, 王岚 . ( 2012). 框架效应中的个体差异. 心理科学进展, 20( 6), 894-901.
10 武洁, 杨建春 . ( 2014). 张、王、李、赵谁最多: 2010年人口普查姓氏结构和分布特点. 中国统计, ( 6), 21-22.
11 Bailey P. E., Szczap P., Mclennan S. N., Slessor G., Ruffman T., & Rendell P. G . ( 2015). Age-related similarities and differences in first impressions of trustworthiness. Cognition and Emotion, 30( 5), 1017-1026.
12 Boero R., Bravo G., Castellani M., & Squazzoni F . ( 2009). Reputational cues in repeated trust games. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38( 6), 871-877.
13 Cox J.C . ( 2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46( 2), 260-281.
14 Delgado M. R., Frank R. H., & Phelps E. A . ( 2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature Neuroscience, 8( 11), 1611-1618.
15 Denes-Raj V. &Epstein S. , ( 1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66( 5), 819-829.
16 DeSteno D . ( 2014).The truth about trust: How it determines success in life, love, learning, and more . New York: Hudson Street Press.
17 Heyman G.D . ( 2008). Children's critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17( 5), 344-347.
18 Kreps D. M., Milgrom P., Roberts J., & Wilson R . ( 1982). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory, 27( 2), 245-252.
19 Li Q., Heyman G. D., Mei J., & Lee K . ( 2019). Judging a book by its cover: Children’s facial trustworthiness as judged by strangers predicts their real-world trustworthiness and peer relationships. Child Development, 90( 2), 562-575.
20 Li T., Liu X., Pan J., & Zhou G . ( 2017). The interactive effect of facial appearance and behavior statement on trust belief and trust behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 117( 1), 60-65.
21 Mahoney K. T., Buboltz W., Levin I. P., Doverspike D., & Svyantek D. J . ( 2011). Individual differences in a within-subjects risky-choice framing study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51( 3), 248-257.
22 Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman F. D . ( 1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20( 3), 709-734.
23 Pacini R. &Epstein S. , ( 1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76( 6), 972-987.
24 Slepian M. L., &Ames D. R . ( 2015). Internalized Impressions: The link between apparent facial trustworthiness and deceptive behavior is mediated by targets’ expectations of how they will be judged. Psychological Science, 27( 2), 282-288.
25 Stirrat M. &Perrett D. I . ( 2010). Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 21( 3), 349-354.
26 Uleman J. S., Newman L. S., & Moskowitz G. B . ( 1996). People as flexible interpreters: evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28( 8), 211-279.
27 van't Wout, M., &Sanfey A. G . ( 2008). Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108( 3), 796-803.
28 Willis J. &Todorov A. , ( 2006). First impressions making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17( 7), 592-598.
[1] 温芳芳, 佐斌, 马书瀚, 谢志杰. 面孔识别的自我群体偏向[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1164-1171.
[2] 范晓壮, 毕小彬, 谢宇, 贺荟中. 高功能自闭症个体对威胁性情绪面孔的注意偏向[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1172-1186.
[3] 刘昕鹤, 王宁, 王锦琰, 罗非. 疼痛背景下时距知觉的变化[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 766-777.
[4] 贺则宇, 张紫琦, 李可轩, 何蔚祺. 空间频率影响恐惧面孔表情加工的神经通路[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(4): 579-587.
[5] 于全磊, 陈建文, 谭秀娟, 邓雪菲, 赵庆柏, 周治金. 父子(女)间面孔相似性的进化适应机制及其影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(3): 476-485.
[6] 孙涂蔚, 骆南峰, 石伟, 李弘扬. 企业高声誉的负面效应的心理学机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(3): 497-509.
[7] 张坤坤, 张珂烨, 张火垠, 罗文波. 面孔可信度加工的时间进程和影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(8): 1394-1403.
[8] 程刚, 贾云丞, 丁芳媛, 张大均, 陈加, 龙女. 表情对婴儿面孔图式效应的调节及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(5): 761-772.
[9] 侯春娜, 刘志军. 心理表征的可视化途径:基于噪音的反向相关图像分类技术[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(3): 465-474.
[10] 张凯莉, 周霈, 王沛. 面孔表情及注视方向对面孔加工特异性的影响——基于知觉负荷理论的视角 *[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 984-993.
[11] 张倩, 陈林林, 杨群. 审判决策过程中的面孔特征效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(4): 698-709.
[12] 荆伟, 刘仔琴.  孤独症者面孔加工中眼部注视不足, 是回避还是忽视?[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(3): 476-487.
[13] 尚俊辰, 陈文锋, 季琭妍. 面孔吸引力在认知过程中的作用及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 241-253.
[14] 于明阳, 李富洪, 曹碧华, .  愉快面孔识别优势及其认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 254-261.
[15] 王昊, 杨志刚. 面孔空想性错视及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(11): 1952-1960.
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