Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2017, Vol. 25 Issue (11) : 1992-2001     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01992
Regular Articles |
 Decision making: Based on the perspective of psychological distance
 JIANG Duo1,2; HE Guibing2
 (1 College of Psychology and Sociology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China) (2 Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China)
Download: PDF(468 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract   Decision making means the evaluating and choosing among alternatives which contains some outcomes. No matter what the results of the decision making refer to money, health, environment or others, all these outcomes may embrace multiple attributes, such as the probability, time and places of the occurrence. And these attributes, as well as the amount of outcome affect individuals’ evaluation of outcome utility and their choices. Previous researches have proposed some models of evaluation, which associate the amount of outcome with its attributes respectively. However, theory of psychological distance has proposed that the probabilistic, temporal, spacial and social distance all can be represented by psychological distance. It indicates that the intertemporal choice, risky decision making and the other kinds of decision making may be unified by the perspective of psychological distance. Recently, a series of researches have been conducted to analyze the homogeneity of these four dimensions of psychological distance. Moreover, the researchers explored the phenomena and rules of discounting based on psychological distance. They also examined the effect of the time, probability, spacial and social distance on individuals’ decision making. For the future research, more attention should be paid to the multi-attribute decision making. And more studies should focus on the common currency of four kinds of psychological distance and the way of integrating different psychological distance. At last, it is expected to construct a general model of decision making based on psychological distance.
Keywords decision making      psychological distance      construal level      discounting     
ZTFLH:     
  B849:C91  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: HE Guibing, E-mail: gbhe@zju.edu.cn     E-mail: E-mail: gbhe@zju.edu.cn
Issue Date: 25 September 2017
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
JIANG Duo
HE Guibing
Cite this article:   
JIANG Duo,HE Guibing.  Decision making: Based on the perspective of psychological distance[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(11): 1992-2001.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01992     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2017/V25/I11/1992
[1] XIN Ziqiang.  Psychological issues inside social governance[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(1): 1-13.
[2] LI Ming-Hui, RAO Li-Lin.  Moral judgment from construal level theory perspective[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1423-1430.
[3] WANG Caiyu; LEI Li; WU Bo. The attitude–behavior gap of ethical consumers: From the perspective of construal level[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(3): 511-522.
[4] WANG Ziyu, YOU Xuqun.  Models and influential factors of aeronautical decision making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(11): 2002-2010.
[5] WANG Caiyu; LEI Li; WU Bo. The influence of temporal reference on inaction inertia of green innovative consumption[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(1): 1-11.
[6] SUN Luying; CHEN Lin; DUAN Jinyun. Advice taking in decision-making: Strategies, influences and feature research[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(1): 169-179.
[7] LI Aimei; SUN Hailong; Xiong Guanxing; WANG Xiaotian; LI Bin. The effect and cognitive mechanism of “time poverty” on intertemporal choice and proactive behavior[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(6): 874-884.
[8] YANG Qun; LI Yu; SUN Delin; LEE Tatia M. C.. The effects of stress on risky and social decision making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(6): 974-984.
[9] ZHANG Yue; XIN Ziqiang. Priming research in social psychology: Approaches and challenges[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 844-854.
[10] WANG Huifang; JIANG Jingchuan. Framing effect in elderly adults[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(4): 612-621.
[11] DENG Ying; XU Fu-Ming; LI Ou; SHI Yan-Wei; LIU Cheng-Hao. The framing effect on social preferences[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(4): 622-632.
[12] HUANG Wenqiang; YANG Shasha; YU Ping. Neural mechanisms of risky decision-making based on rodent research[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(11): 1767-1779.
[13] LI Xiao-Ming; HUANG Rong; Zhou Xin. The Effect of Accidental Emotions on Decision Making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(6): 919-925.
[14] ZHANG Liyuan; BI Yanling; ZHANG Baoshan; CHEN Lu. The Elderly Decision Making: The Current Situations and Challenges of the Field[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(5): 858-870.
[15] HUANG Jun; LI Ye; ZHANG Hongwei. The Application and Development of Construal Level Theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(1): 110-119.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech