Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
提议者的意图、相对收益与绝对收益对不同年龄回应者公平行为的影响
梁福成1;王心怡2;唐卫海3
(1天津师范大学校长办公室, 天津 300387) (2天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074) (3天津师范大学教育科学学院, 天津 300387)
The Effect of Proposer’s Intention, Comparative Payoffs and Absolute Payoffs on the Fairness in Responders with Different Ages
LIANG Fucheng1; WANG Xinyi2; TANG Weihai3
(1 President Office, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China) (2 Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China) (3 School of Educational Science, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China)
全文: PDF(426 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

实验呈现了最后通牒博弈的3种分配情境:匿名者分配情境中, 匿名者提出方案, 且与被试分享资源, 故成熟的回应者需考虑意图、相对收益和绝对收益; 随机数生成器(RNG)分配情境中, 无关的匿名他人与被试分享资源, 故需考虑相对收益与绝对收益; 计算机分配情境中, 因计算机不能带走资源, 故只需考虑绝对收益。实验通过分析3种分配情境下回应者对同一分配方案的拒绝情况, 探讨意图、相对收益、绝对收益对公平行为的影响。结果发现:(1)年幼儿童(4~5岁)倾向于接受绝大多数分配方案; (2)年长儿童(9~11岁)在3种分配情境和多数分配方案上的拒绝率均高于其他组; (3)青少年(16~18岁)在方案2/8上的拒绝次数存在显著差异, 且匿名者分配情境显著多于RNG分配情境, 计算机分配情境显著多于零; 在3/7方案上的拒绝次数存在显著差异, 且计算机分配情境显著多于零; (4)成年人(21~24岁)在1/9和2/8方案上的拒绝次数存在显著差异, 且RNG分配情境显著多于计算机分配情境, 计算机分配情境显著多于零; 在 3/7方案上的拒绝次数具有显著差异, 且匿名者分配情境显著多于RNG分配情境, 计算机分配情境显著多于零。结果表明, (1)年幼儿童很难抵制绝对收益的吸引, 表现最为自利; (2)年长儿童更多考虑了相对收益, 能够抵制绝对收益的吸引, 并开始关注提议者的意图; (3)青少年处于关注提议者意图的重要时期, 主要基于意图与绝对收益进行决策; (4)成人的决策是意图、相对收益、绝对收益共同作用的结果。

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
梁福成
王心怡
唐卫海
关键词 公平回应者意图相对收益绝对收益    
Abstract

Responders often refuse unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in the ultimatum game (UG). Many theoretical and empirical studies are trying to explain this behavior in terms of intention and payoffs. Although social utility model divides payoffs into comparative ones and absolute ones that respectively represent fair tendency and self-interest tendency, few empirical researches have proved this view. Thus, the effects of intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs on individual’s decision in UG were examined. Moreover, how these three factors affected the decision of responders with different ages was also investigated. It was hypothesized that: fairness in responders with different ages had different manifestation, and with the growth of the age, the factors which affected responders’ decision in UG were gradually complicated. To study whether the effects of intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs can be separated in the course of decision, 39 undergraduates and postgraduates were recruited in the first experiment. It was examined whether the rejection times of the same offer in three different conditions existed significant difference. Based on this successful separation design, the second experiment recruited thirty participants in each age group, including younger children group (4-5 years old), older children group (9-11 years old) and teenagers group (16-18 years old). A design of 3 (age group) * 3(distribution situation) * 5 (offer type) was conducted. The three distribution situations were the anonym distribution situation, the random number generator distribution situation, and the computer distribution situation. The offer types included 1/9, 2/8, 3/7, 4/6 and 5/5. It was found that: (1) younger children tended to accept all the offers. (2) compared with other age groups, older children’ s rejection rates in three distribution situations were significantly more, so was that for most offer types. (3) teenagers’ rejection times on 2/8 and 3/7 offers had significant difference in different distribution situations. The rejection times on 2/8 offer in the anonym distribution situation were significantly more than that in the random number generator distribution situation. The rejection times on 2/8 and 3/7 offers in the computer distribution situation were significantly over zero. (4) adults' rejection times on 1/9, 2/8 and 3/7 offers had significantly difference in different distribution situations. The rejection times on 1/9 and 2/8 offers in the random number generator distribution situation were significantly more than that in the computer distribution situation. The rejection times on 3/7 offer in the anonym distribution situation were significantly more than that in the random number generator distribution situation. The rejection times on 1/9, 2/8 and 3/7 offers in the computer distribution situation were significantly over zero. It was indicated that younger children made decision based on self-interest, and they could hardly resist the attraction of absolute payoffs, while older children began to consider about comparative payoffs, and they could resist the attraction of absolute payoffs and pay attention to proposer's intention. Teenagers were in the period of paying attention to proposer's intention and they made decision according to intention and absolute payoffs, whereas fairness in adults was affected by intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs. This study not only enriched the social preferences models about intention and payoffs but also testified the effects of these three factors on individual’s decision in UG. In addition, it provided a reasonable explanation for the fairness in childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.

Key wordsfairness    responder    intention    comparative payoffs    absolute payoffs
收稿日期: 2014-04-19      出版日期: 2015-03-25
基金资助:

教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(14JJD190004)资助。

通讯作者: 唐卫海, E-mail: twhpsy@126.com    
引用本文:   
梁福成;王心怡;唐卫海. 提议者的意图、相对收益与绝对收益对不同年龄回应者公平行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00353.
LIANG Fucheng; WANG Xinyi; TANG Weihai. The Effect of Proposer’s Intention, Comparative Payoffs and Absolute Payoffs on the Fairness in Responders with Different Ages. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(3): 353-362.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00353      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2015/V47/I3/353
[1] 张书维.  社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 794-813.
[2] 罗俊; 叶航;郑昊力;贾拥民;陈姝; 黄达强. 左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用——基于经颅直流电刺激技术[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 228-240.
[3] 郑晓明; 刘鑫. 互动公平对员工幸福感的影响:心理授权的中介作用与权力距离的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 693-709.
[4] 刘蕴;李燕萍;涂乙冬. 员工为什么乐于助人?多层次的领导–部属交换对帮助行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(4): 385-397.
[5] 胡小勇;郭永玉;李静;杨沈龙. 社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(3): 271-289.
[6] 容琰;隋杨; 杨百寅. 领导情绪智力对团队绩效和员工态度的影响——公平氛围和权力距离的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1152-1161.
[7] 杨亚平;王沛;尹志慧;陈庆伟;冯夏影. 刻板印象激活的无意图性及其大脑神经活动特征[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 488-502.
[8] 刘文;朱琳;张雪;张玉;刘颖. 2~3岁儿童在分配情境下的公平敏感性[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(11): 1341-1348.
[9] 钟罗金;范梦; 陈琳;王靖;莫雷;昂晨;林俊贤;庞慧然. 资源的交换价值和工资性质对其分配公平感的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1392-1399.
[10] 王益文;张振; 张蔚;黄亮;郭丰波;原胜. 群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(12): 1850-1859.
[11] 甘甜;李万清;唐红红;陆夏平;李小俚;刘超;罗跃嘉. 经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(9): 1004-1014.
[12] 王斯;苏彦捷. 从理解到使用:心理理论与儿童不同情境中的分配公平性[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(11): 1242-1250.
[13] 隋杨;王辉;岳旖旎;Fred Luthans. 变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响:心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1217-1230.
[14] 吴燕,周晓林. 公平加工的情境依赖性:来自ERP的证据[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 797-806.
[15] 王益文;黄亮;徐晟;袁博;徐艳娇;李洪玉. 理解私人意图与交际意图的ERP证据[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(12): 1618-1627.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》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