心理科学进展, 2019, 27(8): 1460-1467 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01460

研究前沿

自主选择偏好:表现、机制与应用

陈煦海,, 吴茜

陕西师范大学心理学院, 西安 710062

Self-choice preference: Manifestation, mechanism and application

CHEN Xvhai,, WU Qian

School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an 710062, China

通讯作者: 陈煦海, E-mail: shiningocean@snnu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2018-10-3   网络出版日期: 2019-07-26

基金资助: * 教育部人文社科规划基金项目.  19YJA190001
陕西师范大学优秀青年学术骨干资助计划.  16QNGG006
中央高校基本科研业务费.  GK201903105

Received: 2018-10-3   Online: 2019-07-26

摘要

自主选择偏好指当面临自主选择或委托他人选择时, 人们总是偏好自主选择, 即使为此付出代价也在所不惜。自主选择偏好可能有过度自信、控制幻觉和模糊厌恶的原因, 但更多可能源于自主选择本身承载了某种内在价值。奖赏系统(纹状体、内侧前额叶)的神经活动是其关键的神经基础, 同时自主选择也受认知调控系统的调节。未来研究应在社会情景下揭示自主选择偏好的作用机制和调控因素, 并探索它在群体间的平衡机制, 以增进个体幸福和群体利益。

关键词: 自主选择偏好 ; 选择效应 ; 内在价值 ; 奖赏系统

Abstract

Self-choice preference refers to the fact that people always prefer self-determined choice when faced with self-selection or entrusting others to choose, even if they have to pay for this. Specifically, this phenomenon is manifested by the willingness to pay for the right of self-determined choice, regarding the right of self-determined choice as a reward, being more motivated for the self-determined choice, and preference of the self-selected outcome. This is to say, people will pay more money or make more effort to hold the right to choose firmly in their own hands, which will make them feel positive. Overconfidence, ambiguity aversion, and illusory of control are thought to be its underlying mechanism, however, it is more likely it is the intrinsic values embedded in the self-determined choice that make people prefer choosing themselves. It is mainly supported by the reward system (striatum, medial prefrontal lobe), and regulated by cognitive control system. Self-choice preference is widely used in decision-making, management, and education. Future research should further reveal its mechanism and regulatory factors under social scenarios, and explore the balance mechanism of self-choice preferences among different groups, in order to promote individual wellbeing and group interests.

Keywords: self-choice preference ; selection effect ; control premium ; reward system

PDF (578KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

陈煦海, 吴茜. (2019). 自主选择偏好:表现、机制与应用. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1460-1467

CHEN Xvhai, WU Qian. (2019). Self-choice preference: Manifestation, mechanism and application. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(8), 1460-1467

妈妈给刚上幼儿园的女儿备好今天穿的衣服, 女儿却执意要穿另一件, 即使她自己选的那件并不适宜; 子女常常对父母安排的相亲对象嗤之以鼻, 却愿意见见那个自己选来的人, 虽心知那人或许并不合适; 公司高薪聘请了专业投资顾问, 可老板还是遵照自己的直觉做了选择……

这样的事例常见于我们的生活中:在面临自主选择或委托他人选择时, 我们更偏好自主选择, 即使为此付出代价也在所不惜。这种偏好自主选择的现象广泛地影响着我们的生活, 研究者早就注意到该现象, 并考察了它的积极作用(Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, & Deci, 1978), 但直到Leotti等人(2010)在知名期刊Trends in Cognitive Science上撰文称“人生来好选择born to choose”, 学界才兴起了对该现象的系统研究。本文将回溯心理学、经济学和认知神经科学的相关研究, 阐述自主选择偏好的表现形式、作用机制、神经基础, 并尝试总结现实应用中的研究问题。

1 自主选择偏好的表现

1.1 我选择, 我买单

自主选择偏好最直观的表现是人们愿意为自主选择权买单。Fehr, Herz和Wilkening (2013)让两名被试完成“权威游戏authority game”, 分别充当负责人(principal)和代理人(agent)。负责人可以自主选择或委托代理人选择, 代理人只有在被委托后才能进行选择。结果发现负责人总是更多自主选择, 即使这样做有损自己的金钱收益。Bartling, Fehr和Herz (2014)重复了该发现, 说明选择权不仅具有外在价值(extrinsic value), 还存在某种内在价值(intrinsic value)。Owens, Grossman和Fackler (2014)则用另一种范式证明了人们愿意为自主选择权买单:他们让被试先预估自己和同伴正确完成“门萨智力题”的概率, 然后在“自己答对题目就获奖20美元”和“同伴答对题目就获奖20美元”两个选项间选择。结果发现被试预估自己答对的概率仅为56.4%, 但有64.9%的概率选择靠自己赢取奖励。他们认为人们愿意付出8%到15%的收益来取得自主选择权, 称作“控制溢价control premium”。最近一个研究证明这种为自主选择权买单的现象不仅存在于获益框架中, 在损失框架下依然存在(Bobadilla-Suarez, Sunstein, & Sharot, 2017)。这些研究基于经济学的逻辑, 将人们愿意为自主选择权付出的金钱收益进行量化表征, 客观地证明了自主选择偏好现象的存在。

1.2 我选择, 我快乐

人们不光愿意为自主选择权买单, 还会因自主选择而获得更多的积极情绪体验。Leotti和Delgado (2011)让被试完成“二择一”的选择任务, 在选择前用线索提示被试将自主选择或被迫接受电脑给出的选项, 结果发现被试更喜欢有自主选择权的条件, 且预期有自主选择权时就激活奖赏与欣快体验的关键脑区——腹侧纹状体, 说明自主选择权给个体带来了快乐体验。他们随后重复了该发现, 发现该现象只存在于获益框架下, 说明自主选择权引起奖赏体验的现象可能受情景和个人特质的调节(Leotti & Delgado, 2014)。Fujiwara等人(2013)则让被试完成两轮选择, 第一轮在A (固定奖赏额, 如40日元)和B (生活用品个数, 如3个, 包括剪刀、计算器和镜子)间做选择, 若选择A则该试次奖赏为40日元, 若选择B则可以在3个生活用品中自主选择一个作为奖赏。结果发现可供选择的用品越多, 被试匹配的金额就越大, 自主选择也激活纹状体, 其激活水平与被试匹配的金额大小呈正相关。Aoki等人(2014)也发现被试自己所获得的备选项越多, 体验的积极情绪越强, 纹状体的激活程度越高。这些研究证明人们获得自主选择权时有更多的积极情绪体验, 并激活奖赏系统的核心区——腹侧纹状体(Murayama, Izuma, Aoki, & Matsumoto, 2016), 提示自主选择权对人们来说等同于金钱、食物等物质奖赏, 可引起奖赏的愉悦体验, 是人们追逐的目标。

1.3 我选择, 我努力

自主选择偏好还表现为个体完成自主选择的任务时动机水平更高, 愿意付出更多努力(Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008)。Zuckerman等人(1978)让一些被试解决自主选择的谜题, 另一些被试解决预先确定的谜题, 任务完成后, 让被试单独留在实验室面对一些额外的谜题, 结果发现那些解决自主选择题目的被试会主动解决更多的额外谜题。Legault和Inzlicht (2013)用Stroop任务也有类似发现, 被试完成自己选择的任务(相较无选择权的任务)时表现更好, 而且错误反馈诱发更大的错误相关负波(error related negativity, ERN), 说明拥有自主选择权时动机性更强。此外, 拥有自主选择权还能提高个体的记忆成绩(Monty & Permuter, 1975), 提高拳手的运动成绩(Halperin, Chapman, Martin, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 2017), 增加对疼痛刺激的耐受度(Rose, Geers, Rasinski, & Fowler, 2012; Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004)。Murayama等人(2015)用码表任务, 也发现自主选择权提高了被试完成任务的效率, 而且当被试拥有自主选择权时, 即使得到消极反馈也不会引起腹内侧前额叶(vmPFC)的激活水平下降, 提示自主选择权会抵消消极反馈诱发的负性情绪。另外, 在团队合作中, 相较于随机分组, 人们在自主选择加入的团体中付出了更多努力, 从而表现更好(Chen & Gong, 2018)。这些工作揭示了人们在完成自主选择的任务时更愿意付出时间与精力, 与前文所述的为了自主选择而支付“控制溢价”相似, 也是自主选择偏好的外在表现之一。

1.4 我选择, 我喜欢

人们还更喜欢自主选择而来的成果。Brehm (1956)首先让被试对多个物品进行喜好评分, 随后让他们在喜好度相当的两个物品中选择一个, 接下来让他们再次对这些物品进行喜好评分, 结果发现被试对选中的物品的喜好度增加, 对放弃的物品的喜好度降低。这一现象已被多次重复(Izuma et al., 2010; Qin et al., 2011; Sharot, de Martino, & Dolan, 2009; Sharot, Velasquez, & Dolan, 2010), 被称作“选择效应”, 并有元分析证明其稳健性(Kenworthy, Miller, Collins, Read, & Earleywine, 2011)。近年来有研究发现奖赏系统, 包括纹状体(Izuma et al., 2010; Sharot et al., 2009), 腹内侧前额叶(Izuma et al., 2015; Izuma et al., 2010; Qin et al., 2011), 内侧前额叶(mPFC)和后扣带回/楔前叶(PCC/Pcu) (Tompson, Chua, & Kitayama, 2016)可能是“选择效应”的神经基础。人们对自主选择结果的偏爱还表现在轮盘赌游戏中, 人们对自己选择的项目投入更多的赌注(Fleming & Darley, 1990)。该效应与行为经济学中著名的禀赋效应有一定的相似性, 均是给那些与自己存在关联的物品赋予更高的价值, 但是禀赋效应强调“该物品属于自己”才赋予更高价值(Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991), 而选择效应则强调“仅是曾经被自己选择过”就赋予更高价值。最近的研究进一步表明, 在特定的情境中, 具有更高自我意识水平的个体更有可能寻找并发现选择的意义(Dishon, Oldmeadow, & Kaufman, 2018)。

总之, 人们愿意为自主选择权而付出金钱, 会在自主选择的任务中付出更多的努力, 当获得自主选择权时就有奖赏的快感, 且对自主选择的结果也更为珍视, 这些表现都证明人们具有强烈的自主选择偏好。Leotti等人(2010)称“人生来好选择”, 认为自主选择是人类的天性。事实上, 卷尾猴等其他灵长类动物也有自主选择偏好(Perdue, Evans, Washburn, Rumbaugh, & Beran, 2014)。然而, 自主选择偏好未必是理性的, 特别是在大数据计算和信息科学高度发展的今天, 委托专业代理人常常是更为理性的选择。那人们为什么仍然偏好自主选择呢?

2 为何会偏好自主选择

自主选择常常意味着不能让外在价值最大化, 甚至需要牺牲物质利益。研究者对这种非理性行为提出了多种解释。

2.1 过度自信

一种原因是过度自信, 即人们对自己表现和判断的信心远高于其客观水平的认知偏差(Camerer & Lovallo, 1999; 周爱保, 赵鑫, 2009)。这种解释认为过度自信让个体以为自己亲自选择的收益大于委托他人选择的收益, 故而表现出更多的自主选择(Hoelzl & Rustichini, 2005)。鉴于过度自信的普遍性(Kahneman & Tversky, 1996; Moore & Healy, 2008), 这种解释有一定的合理性, 已有研究发现过度自信确可部分解释自主选择偏好(Bobadilla-Suarez et al., 2017)。然而, 个体自主选择的概率仍显著高于其自我估计的正确完成任务的概率, 这表明过度自信不能完全解释自主选择偏好(Bobadilla-Suarez et al., 2017; Owens et al., 2014)。

2.2 控制幻觉

控制幻觉是与过度自信相关的概念, 指在不可控情境下, 个体不合理地高估自己对环境或事件结果的控制力而产生的一种判断偏差(Langer, 1975; 陈雪玲, 徐富明, 刘腾飞, 蒋多, 张军伟, 2010)。这种解释得到一些研究证据的支持, 比如Fehr等人(2013)认为个体是为了保持权威感才拒绝让渡选择权, Bartling等(2014)认为这种为了自主选择而付出工具利益的现象是在支付“控制溢价”。另有一些研究发现控制感可促进个体多种行为表现(Bhanji, Kim, & Delgado, 2016; Salomons et al., 2004)。基于这些证据我们可以推测:通过自主选择来增加控制感可能是自主选择偏好的原因之一。不过, 目前仍然缺乏直接证据证明自主选择就增加了个体的控制感, 或是在自主选择并不引起控制感时人们的自主选择行为就会减少。

2.3 模糊厌恶

模糊厌恶是指相较不熟悉的事物, 人们更喜欢熟悉的事物, 而回避不熟悉的事物(Fox & Tversky, 1995)。当个体面临自主选择或委托他人选择时, 若没有足够的信息以推算自主选择和让渡选择权所带来的收益, 他可能认为亲自选择的模糊度低于让渡选择权的模糊度, 进而更多地进行自主选择。Owens等人(2014)操控了决策信息的模糊程度, 发现自主选择偏好虽随模糊程度降低而变化, 但没有达到统计显著, 这说明模糊厌恶虽对自主选择偏好有影响, 但仍非最关键的影响因素。

2.4 内在价值

前几种解释都可在一定程度上阐释自主选择偏好, 但都不能做出完备的解释。因而, 有研究者干脆退一步, 提出人们之所以偏好自主选择, 就是因为自主选择存在超越外在价值的内在价值(Bartling et al., 2014; Leotti & Delgado, 2011; Leotti et al., 2010)。这一解释的有力证据是自主选择权本身就能引起积极体验和奖赏系统激活(Aoki et al., 2014; Fujiwara et al., 2013; Leotti & Delgado, 2011, 2014), 以及个体愿意放弃外在价值以获得自主选择权(Bartling et al., 2014; Bobadilla-Suarez et al., 2017; Owens et al., 2014)。这种解释将自主选择偏好概括地归结为选择本身具有内在价值, 大大提高了解释力。但随之而来的问题是这种内在价值到底是什么?

一种可能是控制感。如前所述, 控制感是人类珍视的感觉之一, 能给人们带来很多好处(Bhanji et al., 2016; Patall et al., 2008; Salomons et al., 2004), 失去控制感则引起“习得性无助”等负面效应(Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978)。亲自选择时, 个体可能体验了一种即时的掌控感, 毕竟选择是自己做的, 即使需要为此付出外在价值也在所不惜(Fehr et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2014)。倘若控制感超越了真实水平, 也就成了控制幻觉, 所以这种解释一定程度上涵盖了控制幻觉假说。

另一种可能是自主选择是人类演化过程中发展起来的“启发式heuristic” (Bobadilla-Suarez et al., 2017), 是面临抉择时的“默认选项”。仿佛大脑里有个预设——相较他人为我们选择, 自主选择的结果往往更符合我们的偏好, 更满足我们的需要(1 大多数时候这种设定是正确的(Polman, 2010; Stone & Allgaier, 2008), 而且有自由主义、人文主义的不断强化, 可能加强了这种认识。)。因而我们总是先进行这种“启发式”决策(Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011), 而且仅是执行这种启发式的选择就能激活奖赏系统(Leotti & Delgado, 2011), 让个体愿意为之付出外在价值(Owens et al., 2014)。此外, 相较代理选择, 自主选择也可能意味着更多的反馈学习的可能, 这也强化了其作为一种启发式的价值。

第三种可能是自主选择更符合个体的“内在动机”。Deci和Ryan (2000)提出的自我决定论(Self-determination theory)认为胜任力(competence), 自主性(autonomy)和关系(relatedness)是个体与生俱来的心理需要, 也就是个体行为的内在动机。自主选择是满足个体“胜任力”和“自主性”两大内在动机的有效途径。比如, 研究报告人们在自主选择的任务中表现更好, 而外在刺激, 即使是奖赏也可能妨碍内在动机的作用, 降低个体的作业成绩(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, & Matsumoto, 2010)。因此, 自主选择权和外在物质奖赏可能同属于人类的某种心理需要, 同属于人们追逐的目标。

总之, 不管是为了获得控制感, 还是作为一种“启发式”行为方法, 抑或是契合人们的某种内在动机, 自主选择都表征了某种符合个体内在需求的价值, 这可能让个体形成了自主选择偏好。不过, 这种偏好就像损失厌恶等现象一样, 虽有其存在的合理性, 但仍需与理性进行权衡, 才能帮助个体实现价值的最大化。

3 自主选择偏好的神经基础

揭示自主选择偏好的神经基础有利于将该领域的研究引向深入。事实上, 认知神经科学的发现一方面证实自主选择偏好的存在(Leotti & Delgado, 2011), 同时也为揭示自主选择偏好的作用机制提供了新视角。有研究者提出“内在动机神经科学intrinsic motivation neuroscience” (Di Domenico & Ryan, 2017)和“自主性神经科学autonomy neuroscience” (Murayama et al., 2016), 强调探索自主选择偏好的神经基础具有重要价值。

自主选择权对个体来说是一种奖赏, 既满足个体的偏好, 也是个体追逐的目标。已有一些研究提示:包括纹状体和腹内侧前额叶在内的奖赏系统是自主选择偏好的重要神经基础。例如在Leotti和Delgado (2011, 2014)的研究中, 仅让被试知道自己获得了自主选择权就能激活腹侧纹状体; 选择效应中项目因被选中而喜好度增加的程度也与纹状体的激活水平呈正相关(Sharot et al., 2009; Sharot, Shiner, & Dolan, 2010); 同时, 纹状体的激活让记忆得到强化也是自主选择促进记忆效果的重要机制(Murty, DuBrow, & Davachi, 2015)。Aoki等人(2014)发现纹状体激活强度与自己获得选择权的项目数呈正相关, 而腹内侧前额叶激活强度和自己与他人之间备选项目数的比例呈正相关。Murayama等人(2015)发现自主选择权可调节正负反馈引起的腹内侧前额叶的激活水平。Di Domenico和Ryan (2017)认为自主选择偏好还与中脑多巴胺能系统相关, 但当前的证据主要基于内在动机的类比(Bromberg-Martin, Matsumoto, & Hikosaka, 2010), 仍缺乏基于自主选择偏好的直接证据。

另有研究发现选择引起的项目偏好度变化与前扣带回的激活相关(Izuma et al., 2010; Kitayama, Chua, Tompson, & Han, 2013), 背侧前扣带回激活水平还调控了Stroop任务中的自主选择效应(Legault & Inzlicht, 2013)。这可能是因为自主选择偏好涉及自我参照加工。此外, Di Domenico和Ryan (2017)提出内在动机系统还涉及凸显性检测网络、注意控制网络。若将自主选择偏好置于内在动机系统下, 那自主选择偏好也应当有前脑岛和背外侧前额叶等脑区的参与, 不过目前尚缺乏直接的证据。

总之, 基于已有证据, 自主选择偏好的神经基础主要涉及纹状体(完成对自主选择权的自动和初级评估), 内侧前额叶和前扣带回等区域(将背景信息纳入分析并与个体自我发生关联), 同时接受注意控制系统的调节。

4 研究应用与展望

把自主选择偏好作为一个独立的现象进行研究, 仍是心理学和经济学发展的一个新趋势。但是研究者已逐渐意识到它的重要性, 甚至催生了“自主性神经科学”和“内在动机神经科学”。联合国可持续发展方案联盟发布的《2018年全球幸福度报告》就把“人生抉择自由”作为影响国民幸福感的重要因素。综观本领域的研究, 研究者已从心理学、经济学、神经科学的角度描述了自主选择偏好的表现, 并试图阐释其作用机制和神经基础。但自主选择偏好的研究方兴未艾, 仍有许多问题值得深入探索。

4.1 多个“原因”如何协同发挥作用?

虽说我们可以基于已有研究就自主选择偏好的内在机制进行多种猜测性解释, 包括过度自信、控制幻觉、模糊厌恶和内在价值等等。却从未有研究以实验操控的方法解释自主选择偏好的内在机制。虽然“自主选择偏好承载了某种内在价值”的假说可以很好地解释自主选择偏好, 但是各种可能原因之间如何协同作用仍未可知。解决该问题不但可进一步揭示促进自主选择偏好的作用机制, 也可以帮助应用研究找到“自主”与“代理”间的平衡点。

比如经济学研究强调自主选择带来的控制感(Fehr et al., 2013; Rose et al., 2012), 而心理学研究强调自主选择承载的心理需求(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sharot, Velasquez, et al., 2010), 二者既有一定的重叠又有一定的分离, 若能以实验操控的方式揭示二者的交互作用机制就可能增进对该问题的理解。另外, 自主决定论提出胜任力、自主性和关系是个体的内在动机(Deci & Ryan, 2000), 前两者在已有研究中得到体现, 但个体对关系的需要却被忽视。这可能是因为大多数研究中被试的任务是把自己的外在利益最大化, 未将关系等社会因素纳入考量。但是, 若是个体知道让渡选择权可以满足他人的自主选择偏好, 进而增进双方的关系, 那么个体会如何决策呢?事实上, 社会性是人类的关键属性, 应当将自主选择偏好置于社会情境下考量。已有研究报告自主选择偏好受文化因素的调节(Iyengar & Lepper, 1999), 提示纳入社会因素可能会更深入地揭示自主选择偏好的作用机制。

4.2 感性与理性如何平衡?

人们偏好自主选择, 即使这么做并不能增加外在价值, 反而需要额外付出“控制溢价”, 人们仍是在所不惜(Bartling et al., 2014; Bobadilla-Suarez et al., 2017; Fehr et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2014)。不管是因为过度自信还是自主选择承载了某种内在价值, 该现象都和时间折扣、损失规避等现象相似, 是由皮层下组织主导的感性行为。这在人类演化意义上有其合理性, 但在信息时代, 其非理性的特征可能会被放大。自主选择所承载的内在价值在短期内可能占优, 但是这种占优状态的可持续性显然存疑。特别是科技迅速发展的今天, 基于大数据的专业代理人和人工智能必然能够基于外在价值做出更优的决策。一方是演化而来的“默认设置”, 能给予个体很多良好的心理感觉, 一方是基于先进技术的理性选择, 能给个体带来不少的功利性收益。如何在照顾个体内在需要的同时, 又能运用理性的认知控制系统调控这种偏好, 进而助推其做出最优决策是个值得探索的问题。

若自主选择是演化而来的“默认设置”, 那人为的“默认效应”似乎在一定程度上消解了自主选择这个“默认设置”。默认效应是指当存在默认选项时, 个体决策时倾向于保留默认选项而不做出改变的一种现象(黄宝珍, 徐富明, 王岚, 马向阳, 吴修良, 2011)。显然, 默认选项(default option)的设置在一定程度上妨碍了决策中的自主权和自由性, 但这种设置又确实有效助推了个体器官捐献、保险消费等行为(Thaler, & Sunstein, 2008)。那为什么人为的默认选项就会让个体放弃自己选择呢?未来研究可以探讨默认效应和自主选择偏好之间的矛盾如何协调, 二者如何相互影响等问题。揭示个体在这二者间进行权衡时的心理过程不仅可以有力推进该领域的研究, 还将在商业消费、慈善捐助等现实问题中有广阔的应用前景。

此外, 自主选择权固然是一种奖赏, 奖赏所带来的欣快感也随备选数目的增加而增加(Aoki et al., 2014), 而减少备选项则会引起不满(Mirosa, Loh, & Spence, 2016)。但是选择就意味着认知消耗, 而人类往往是厌恶认知消耗的。那么, 对选择权的偏好和对认知消耗的厌恶这对矛盾如何协调, 特别是当备选项增多导致信息冗余时, 人们又会如何决策呢?已有研究报告人们在拥有6个备选项(相较24到30个备选项)时购买行为更多, 提示备选项并非越多越好(Iyengar & Lepper, 2000)。因此, 在给予自主选择机会的同时, 又将备选项控制在合适的范围内, 或可助推个体决策行为。

4.3 照顾谁的自主选择偏好?

如果每个人都用自主选择偏好来满足内在需求, 实现控制感, 社会交互行为中时应该照顾谁的自主选择偏好呢?比如, 管理者可能为了权威感而拒绝让渡选择权(Fehr et al., 2013), 而被管理者可能因为自主选择权就获得了奖赏体验(Leotti & Delgado, 2011), 并为自己的选择付出更多努力 (Murayama et al., 2015), 更多坚持(Rose et al., 2012), 从而取得更好的业绩(Legault & Inzlicht, 2013)。那么该把谁的自主选择偏好放在首位呢?组织内部的活动不是零和游戏(2 指参与博弈的各方, 在严格竞争下, 一方的收益必然意味着另一方的损失, 博弈各方的收益和损失相加总和永远为“零”, 双方不存在合作的可能。), 管理者与被管理者有共同的利益追求, 他们是一种合作的关系, 那就应该尽量在二者间取得平衡, 照顾好彼此的心理需求, 处理好双方的自主选择偏好。

此外, 在我国当前教育体系下, 家长、教师等教育者总是以过来人的姿态为受教育者设计好目标、方法和过程。这种处理方式或许是理性的选择, 但是往往会忽视受教育者的自主选择偏好。然而, 事实是自主选择可提高学生的内在动机(Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Ciampa, 2016)、增加自我满足感(Lee & Reeve, 2013)和提高记忆成绩(Monty & Permuter, 1975)。还有研究提出行为自主决策能够显著正向预测农村留守和非留守青少年的生活满意度(赵景欣, 王秋金, 杨萍, 刘霞, 2017), 提示我们重视青少年的自主选择或是提升其幸福感的有效途径之一。因此, 如何更好地运用自主选择这种人类固有的心理特点开展教育, 特别是在流水线式的人才培养模式逐渐式微, 个体的创造性与幸福感的价值日趋吃重的背景下, 巧妙地在教育者与受教育者的自主选择偏好上拿捏平衡, 对于教育改革具有重要的价值。

自主选择是实现内在心理需求的重要手段(Deci & Ryan, 2000), 而我们在要求实施自主选择时往往处于一个社会情境中, 一个人的自主选择很有可能妨碍了他人的自主选择。我国当前的社会矛盾已是“人民日益增长的美好生活需要和不平衡不充分的发展之间的矛盾”, 这意味着人民群众将会更关注获得感、幸福感、安全感等颇具主观色彩的“软需求”, 而“人生抉择自由”或是保全个体获得感、幸福感和安全感的重要抓手之一。所以, 现实生活中以更大的格局审视各方的自主选择偏好, 寻求各方平衡, 并让选择主体知晓自主选择偏好的非理性特征, 适当引入认知调控, 或可促进个体幸福和增进群体利益。

参考文献

陈雪玲, 徐富明, 刘腾飞, 蒋多, 张军伟 . (2010).

控制幻觉的研究方法、形成机制和影响因素

心理科学进展, 18( 5), 800-809.

[本文引用: 1]

黄宝珍, 徐富明, 王岚, 马向阳, 吴修良 . (2011).

行为决策中的默认效应

心理科学进展, 19( 11), 1675-1683.

[本文引用: 1]

赵景欣, 王秋金, 杨萍, 刘霞 . (2017).

行为自主决策、亲子亲合与个体主观幸福感的关系: 留守与非留守青少年的比较

心理发展与教育, 33( 3), 352-360.

[本文引用: 1]

周爱保, 赵鑫 . (2009).

过度自信的研究展望

心理与行为研究, 7( 3), 236-240.

[本文引用: 1]

Abramson L. Y., Seligman M. E. P., & Teasdale J. D . (1978).

Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation

Journal of Abnormal Psychology,87(1), 49-74.

[本文引用: 1]

Aoki R., Matsumoto M., Yomogida Y., Izuma K., Murayama K., Sugiura A., .. Matsumoto K . (2014).

Social equality in the number of choice options is represented in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex

Journal of Neuroscience,34(18), 6413-6421.

Magsci     [本文引用: 4]

A distinct aspect of the sense of fairness in humans is that we care not only about equality in material rewards but also about equality in nonmaterial values. One such value is the opportunity to choose freely among many options, often regarded as a fundamental right to economic freedom. In modern developed societies, equal opportunities in work, living, and lifestyle are enforced by antidiscrimination laws. Despite the widespread endorsement of equal opportunity, no studies have explored how people assign value to it. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify the neural substrates for subjective valuation of equality in choice opportunity. Participants performed a two-person choice task in which the number of choices available was varied across trials independently of choice outcomes. By using this procedure, we manipulated the degree of equality in choice opportunity between players and dissociated it from the value of reward outcomes and their equality. We found that activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) tracked the degree to which the number of options between the two players was equal. In contrast, activation in the ventral striatum tracked the number of options available to participants themselves but not the equality between players. Our results demonstrate that the vmPFC, a key brain region previously implicated in the processing of social values, is also involved in valuation of equality in choice opportunity between individuals. These findings may provide valuable insight into the human ability to value equal opportunity, a characteristic long emphasized in politics, economics, and philosophy.

Bartling B., Fehr E., & Herz H . (2014).

The intrinsic value of decision rights

Econometrica,82(6), 2005-2039.

Magsci     [本文引用: 5]

Philosophers, psychologists, and economists have long argued that certain decision rights carry not only instrumental value but may also be valuable for their own sake. The ideas of autonomy, freedom, and liberty derive their intuitive appealat least partlyfrom an assumed positive intrinsic value of decision rights. Providing clean evidence for the existence of this intrinsic value and measuring its size, however, is intricate. Here, we develop a method capable of achieving these goals. The data reveal that the large majority of our subjects intrinsically value decision rights beyond their instrumental benefit. The intrinsic valuation of decision rights has potentially important consequences for corporate governance, human resource management, and optimal job design: it may explain why managers value power, why employees appreciate jobs with task discretion, why individuals sort into self-employment, and why the reallocation of decision rights is often very difficult and cumbersome. Our method and results may also prove useful in developing an empirical revealed preference foundation for concepts such as freedom of choice and individual autonomy.

Bhanji J. P., Kim E. S., & Delgado M. R . (2016).

Perceived control alters the effect of acute stress on persistence

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,145(3), 356-365.

[本文引用: 2]

Bobadilla-Suarez S., Sunstein C. R., & Sharot T . (2017).

The intrinsic value of choice: The propensity to under- delegate in the face of potential gains and losses

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,54(3), 187-202.

[本文引用: 6]

Brehm J. . (1956).

Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,52(3), 384-389.

[本文引用: 1]

Bromberg-Martin E. S., Matsumoto M., & Hikosaka O . (2010).

Dopamine in motivational control: Rewarding, aversive, and alerting

Neuron,68(5), 815-834.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Midbrain dopamine neurons are well known for their strong responses to rewards and their critical role in positive motivation. It has become increasingly clear, however, that dopamine neurons also transmit signals related to salient but nonrewarding experiences such as aversive and alerting events. Here we review recent advances in understanding the reward and nonreward functions of dopamine. Based on this data, we propose that dopamine neurons come in multiple types that are connected with distinct brain networks and have distinct roles in motivational control. Some dopamine neurons encode motivational value, supporting brain networks for seeking, evaluation, and value learning. Others encode motivational salience, supporting brain networks for orienting, cognition, and general motivation. Both types of dopamine neurons are augmented by an alerting signal involved in rapid detection of potentially important sensory cues. We hypothesize that these dopaminergic pathways for value, salience, and alerting cooperate to support adaptive behavior.

Camerer C. &Lovallo D., (1999).

Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach

The American Economic Review,89(1), 306-318.

[本文引用: 1]

Chen R. &Gong J., (2018).

Can self selection create high-performing teams?

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,148 20-33.

[本文引用: 1]

Ciampa K. (2016).

Motivating grade 1 children to read: Exploring the role of choice, curiosity, and challenge in mobile ebooks

Reading Psychology,37(5), 665-705.

[本文引用: 1]

Cordova D.., &Lepper M.R . (1996).

Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice

Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4), 715-730.

[本文引用: 1]

Deci E. L., Koestner R., & Ryan R. M . (1999).

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation

Psychological Bulletin,125(6), 627-668.

[本文引用: 3]

Deci E.., &Ryan R.M . (2000).

The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior

Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227-268.

[本文引用: 2]

DiDomenico S.I., &Ryan R.M . (2017).

The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: A new frontier in self-determination research

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 145.

[本文引用: 3]

Dishon N., Oldmeadow J. A., & Kaufman J . (2018).

Trait self-awareness predicts perceptions of choice meaningfulness in a decision-making task

BMC Research Notes,11(1), 75.

[本文引用: 1]

Fehr E., Herz H., & Wilkening T . (2013).

The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects of power

American Economic Review,103(4), 1325-1359.

Magsci     [本文引用: 6]

Authority and power permeate political, social, and economic life, but empirical knowledge about the motivational origins and consequences of authority is limited. We study the motivation and incentive effects of authority experimentally in an authority-delegation game. Individuals often retain authority even when its delegation is in their material interest-suggesting that authority has nonpecuniary consequences for utility. Authority also leads to over-provision of effort by the controlling parties, while a large percentage of subordinates underprovide effort despite pecuniary incentives to the contrary. Authority thus has important motivational consequences that exacerbate the inefficiencies arising from suboptimal delegation choices. (JEL C92, D23, D82)

Fleming J.., &Darley J.M . (1990).

The purposeful-action sequence and the “Illusion of Control”: The effects of foreknowledge and target involvement on observers’ judgments of others’ control over random events

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,16(2), 346-357.

[本文引用: 1]

Fox C.., &Tversky A., (1995).

Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance

The Quarterly Journal of Economics,110(3), 585-603.

[本文引用: 1]

Fujiwara J., Usui N., Park S. Q., Williams T., Iijima T., Taira M., .. Tobler P. N . (2013).

Value of freedom to choose encoded by the human brain

Journal of Neurophysiology,110(8), 1915-1929.

[本文引用: 2]

Gigerenzer G. &Gaissmaier W., (2011).

Heuristic decision making

Annual Review of Psychology,62 451-482.

[本文引用: 1]

Halperin I., Chapman D. W., Martin D. T., Lewthwaite R., & Wulf G . (2017).

Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers

Psychological Research,81(5), 1051-1058.

[本文引用: 1]

Hoelzl E. &Rustichini A., (2005).

Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?

Economic Journal,115(503), 305-318.

[本文引用: 1]

Iyengar S.., &Lepper M.R . (1999).

Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation

Journal Personality and Social Psychology,76(3), 349-366.

[本文引用: 1]

Iyengar S.., &Lepper M.R . (2000).

When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79(6), 995-1006.

[本文引用: 1]

Izuma K., Akula S., Murayama K., Wu D-A., Iacoboni M., & Adolphs R . (2015).

A causal role for posterior medial frontal cortex in choice-induced preference change

Journal of Neuroscience,35(8), 3598-3606.

[本文引用: 1]

Izuma K., Matsumoto M., Murayama K., Samejima K., Sadato N., & Matsumoto K . (2010).

Neural correlates of cognitive dissonance and choice-induced preference change

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,107(51), 22014-22019.

[本文引用: 4]

Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H . (1991).

Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias

Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1), 193-206.

[本文引用: 1]

Kahneman D. &Tversky A., (1996).

On the reality of cognitive illusions

Psychological Review,103(3), 582-591.

[本文引用: 1]

Kenworthy J. B., Miller N., Collins B. E., Read S. J., & Earleywine M . (2011).

A trans-paradigm theoretical synthesis of cognitive dissonance theory: Illuminating the nature of discomfort

European Review of Social Psychology,22(1), 36-113.

[本文引用: 1]

Kitayama S., Chua H. F., Tompson S., & Han S . (2013).

Neural mechanisms of dissonance: An fMRI investigation of choice justification

Neuroimage,69 206-212.

[本文引用: 1]

Langer E. . (1975).

The illusion of control

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,32(2), 311-328.

[本文引用: 1]

Lee W. &Reeve J., (2013).

Self-determined, but not non-self-determined, motivation predicts activations in the anterior insular cortex: An fMRI study of personal agency

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,8(5), 538-545.

[本文引用: 1]

Legault L. &Inzlicht M., (2013).

Self-determination, self-regulation, and the brain: Autonomy improves performance by enhancing neuroaffective responsiveness to self-regulation failure

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,105(1), 123-138.

[本文引用: 3]

Leotti L.., &Delgado M.R . (2011).

The inherent reward of choice

Psychological Science,22(10), 1310-1318.

[本文引用: 7]

Leotti L.., &Delgado M.R . (2014).

The value of exercising control over monetary gains and losses

Psychological Science,25(2), 596-604.

[本文引用: 3]

Leotti L. A., Iyengar S. S., & Ochsner K. N . (2010).

Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control

Trends in Cognitive Sciences,14(10), 457-463.

Magsci     [本文引用: 2]

Belief in one's ability to exert control over the environment and to produce desired results is essential for an individual's wellbeing. It has repeatedly been argued that perception of control is not only desirable, but is also probably a psychological and biological necessity. In this article, we review the literature supporting this claim and present evidence of a biological basis for the need for control and for choice-that is, the means by which we exercise control over the environment. Converging evidence from animal research, clinical studies and neuroimaging suggests that the need for control is a biological imperative for survival, and a corticostriatal network is implicated as the neural substrate of this adaptive behavior.

Mirosa M., Loh J., & Spence H . (2016).

The possibilities of reducing food choice to improve the performance of college foodservices

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,116(7), 1163-1171.

[本文引用: 1]

Monty R.., &Permuter L.C . (1975).

Persistence of the effects of choices on paired-associate learning

Memory & Cognition,3(2), 183-187.

[本文引用: 2]

Moore D.., &Healy P.J . (2008).

The trouble with overconfidence

Psychological Review,115(2), 502-517.

[本文引用: 1]

Murayama K., Izuma K., Aoki R., &Matsumoto K , (2016). “Your Choice” motivates you in the brain:The emergence of autonomy neuroscience. In J. Reeve, S. Kim, & M. Bong (Eds.), Recent Developments in Neuroscience Research on Human Motivation (pp. 95-125). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[本文引用: 4]

Murayama K., Matsumoto M., Izuma K., & Matsumoto K . (2010).

Neural basis of the undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107(49), 20911-20916.

[本文引用: 1]

Murayama K., Matsumoto M., Izuma K., Sugiura A., Ryan R. M., Deci E. L., & Matsumoto K . (2015).

How self-determined choice facilitates performance: A key role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex

Cerebral Cortex,25(5), 1241-1251.

[本文引用: 1]

Murty V. P., DuBrow S., & Davachi L . (2015).

The simple act of choosing influences declarative memory

Journal of Neuroscience,35(16), 6255-6264.

[本文引用: 1]

Owens D., Grossman Z., & Fackler R . (2014).

The control premium: A preference for payoff autonomy

American Economic Journal-Microeconomics,6(4), 138-161.

Magsci     [本文引用: 7]

We document individuals' willingness to pay to control their own payoff. Experiment participants choose whether to bet on themselves or on a partner answering a quiz question correctly. Given participants' beliefs, which we elicit separately, expected-money maximizers would bet on themselves in 56.4 percent of the decisions. However, participants actually bet on themselves in 64.9 percent of their opportunities, reflecting an aggregate control premium. The average participant is willing to sacrifice 8 percent to 15 percent of expected asset earnings to retain control. Thus, agents may incur costs to avoid delegating, and studies inferring beliefs from choices may overestimate their results on overconfidence.

Patall E. A., Cooper H., & Robinson J. C . (2008).

The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings

Psychological Bulletin,134(2), 270-300.

[本文引用: 2]

Perdue B. M., Evans T. A., Washburn D. A., Rumbaugh D. M., & Beran M. J . (2014).

Do monkeys choose to choose?

Learning & behavior,42(2), 164-175.

[本文引用: 1]

Polman E. (2010).

Information distortion in self-other decision making

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46(2), 432-435.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract

In both organizational and social arenas, individuals make decisions for themselves and for other individuals. But research in decision making has provided little input into whether or how these decisions are psychologically different. In this paper, I propose that decisions—depending on whom they are for—vary according to the extent of information distortion, such that, individuals who choose for themselves demonstrate more postdecisional distortion, yet less predecisional distortion than individuals who choose on behalf of others. To test this hypothesis, participants in an experiment made a decision between two restaurants. Attributes about each restaurant were presented sequentially, and preferences were measured following each attribute. As expected, participants who chose for themselves experienced more postdecisional distortion. However, among participants who chose on behalf of others, greater distortion of predecisional attribute information was observed. These findings shed light on the differences in self-other decision making, as well as on research concerning information distortion.

Qin J., Kimel S., Kitayama S., Wang X., Yang X., & Han S . (2011).

How choice modifies preference: Neural correlates of choice justification

Neuroimage,55(1), 240-246.

[本文引用: 2]

Rose J. P., Geers A. L., Rasinski H. M., & Fowler S. L . (2012).

Choice and placebo expectation effects in the context of pain analgesia

Journal of Behavioral Medicine,35(4), 462-470.

Magsci     [本文引用: 3]

The current experiment examined whether having choice over treatment options facilitates or inhibits the strength of placebo expectations in the context of pain perception. All participants were exposed to an aversive stimulus (i.e., the cold pressor task), and participants in some conditions were given expectations for two pain-relieving treatments (actually the same inert ointment mixture). Critically, participants in these expectation conditions were also given a choice or not about which of the two treatments they preferred to use. Participants in a control condition were not provided with a treatment expectation. Despite receiving the same inert treatment, participants who had a choice over treatments showed increased placebo analgesia as compared to participants not given a choice and participants in the control condition. Moreover, this effect was mediated by changes in anxiety. Explanations and implications for these results are discussed.

Salomons T. V., Johnstone T., Backonja M-M., & Davidson R. J . (2004).

Perceived controllability modulates the neural response to pain

Journal of Neuroscience,24(32), 7199-7203.

[本文引用: 3]

Sharot T., de Martino B., & Dolan R. J . (2009).

How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome

Journal of Neuroscience,29(12), 3760-3765.

[本文引用: 3]

Sharot T., Shiner T., & Dolan R. J . (2010).

Experience and choice shape expected aversive outcomes

Journal of Neuroscience,30(27), 9209-9215.

[本文引用: 2]

Sharot T., Velasquez C. M., & Dolan R. J . (2010).

Do decisions shape preference?: Evidence from blind choice

Psychological Science,21(9), 1231-1235.

[本文引用: 1]

Stone E.., &Allgaier L., (2008).

A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk

Basic and Applied Social Psychology,30(2), 114-129.

[本文引用: 1]

Thaler R. H., & Sunstein C. R ,(2008). Nudge:Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness New Haven: Yale University Press Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.New Haven:Yale University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Tompson S., Chua H. F., & Kitayama S . (2016).

Connectivity between mPFC and PCC predicts post-choice attitude change: The self-referential processing hypothesis of choice justification

Human Brain Mapping,37(11), 3810-3820.

[本文引用: 1]

Zuckerman M., Porac J., Lathin D., & Deci E. L . (1978).

Importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,4(3), 443-446.

[本文引用: 2]

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

/