Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
4~6岁幼儿经济博弈中的信任行为及其影响因素
李婷玉1,2; 刘 黎1,2; 朱莉琪1
(1中国科学院行为科学重点实验室, 中国科学院心理研究所, 北京 100101) (2中国科学院大学, 北京 100049)
4~6 year-old children’s trust in economic game and its influencing factors
LI Tingyu1,2; LIU Li1,2; ZHU Liqi1
(1 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101, China) (2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)
全文: PDF(536 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

本研究通过两个实验考察幼儿是否在博弈任务中表现出对陌生人的信任行为, 同时考察可能对幼儿的信任产生影响的因素,包括个体认知因素(观点采择)和环境因素(负性反馈和代际传递)。研究对189名4~6岁幼儿及其家长进行多种任务的测量。实验一通过修订Evans和Krugger (2011)的信任博弈任务,考察幼儿在匿名信任博弈中的信任行为, 结果发现与4岁幼儿相比, 6岁幼儿对他人的信任更低; 实验二考察了幼儿信任的影响因素, 结果发现, 幼儿在得到负性反馈结果后再次进行信任博弈任务时, 他们对他人的信任比前次有所降低, 6岁幼儿对他人返还数量的预期比4岁幼儿下降程度更大; 6岁幼儿的信任行为(第一次给出意愿)与观点采择能力显著相关; 6岁幼儿的信任水平与家长的信任水平显著相关。

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
李婷玉
刘黎
朱莉琪
关键词 4~6岁幼儿 信任 信任博弈 代际传递 观点采择 负性结果    
Abstract

Trust is essential to personal well-being and economic success. Trust is a kind of rational behavior, and it is also a kind of social behavior, which may be influenced by the development of individual cognitive ability (perspective taking) and the environment (negative feedback and intergenerational transmission). Research on children’s trust can help us understand the development of trust, and help us establish better informed education programs. To measure trust, prior work has used the Trust Game, a game that requires children to decide how many tokens to invest to other players. However, research on the development of preschoolers’ trust using economic trust game is rare. The current work explores young children’s trust in economic trust game and its influencing factors. To explore these factors, we tested 189 4~6-year-old preschoolers on multiple tasks employed to investigate preschooler’s development of trust. In study 1, the revised version of Evans’ (2013) Trust Game (Surprise Bag Task) was used to explore the preschoolers’ trust. Each game began with introducing the potential trustee. The strange child (trustee) was referred to as “a boy (or girl) the same age as you who attend a different kindergarten.” Then children were given a “surprise bag” (the opaque plastic bag contained toys). After giving the bag to the children, children were told that they could keep the bag or give it to the trustee. Children were told that if they give it to the trustee, the trustee would receive four bags and children were asked if they believed trustee and were willing to give “surprise bag” to trustee (willingness to give as a trust behavior).If they trusted, children were asked how many surprise bags would return from trustee. In study 2, we explored how negative feedback (trustee refused to return supervise bag to the child) affected whether children still chose to trust strangers in later “surprise bag” games. We also explored the role of perspective taking ability (Unexpected location task) in children’s trust decisions. Finally, we investigated the relationship between children’s trust (“Surprise bag” Task) and their parents’ trust. Parents’ trust were measured by trust game questionnaire, they were given 100 tokens. Parents were told that they could keep the tokens or give all of the tokens to the trustee. If parents were willing to give tokens to trustee, the trustee would get 400 tokens. This would demonstrate a willingness to give tokens to trustee as a trust behavior. In study 1, the results showed that more than half of the children gave surprise bags to trustee in anonymous interactions, and there was no significant difference between the three age groups. But there was a significant difference in the number of bags that were expected to return from trustee among the three age groups. Four-year-old children expected significantly more bags would return from trustee than the older children. Young children demonstrated more trust than older children. In study 2 we also found that trust decreased in all age groups after the betrayal (children were told that the trustee refused to return any of the surprise bags to them),. Although some of children still gave their “surprise bag” to the trustee again, most of children did not trust trustee at the second time. The difference between the number of bags expected to return from trustee in the two times was significant, all of the children expected less bags would be returned after betrayal. Specifically, the elder children mistrusted trustee after negative feedback was given, while 4-year-old children still expected more bags to be returned to them by the trustee than 6-year-old children. At age 6 children’s willingness to trust was positively related with children's perspective taking ability. Also, at age 6 children’s trust was related with their parents’ trust, and parents’ trust significantly predicted children’s trust. In sum, children have an early tendency to trust, and younger children have stronger trust tendency than elder children. After negative feedback (a stranger does not return “surprise bag” to the child), children's trust declines, and older children trust less than the younger children. Children’s perspective taking ability is positively correlated with elder children’s trust. In addition, parents’ values influences children’s trust at the age of 6.

Key words4~6 year-old preschoolers    trust    trust game    parental transmission    perspective taking    negative feedback
收稿日期: 2015-11-12      出版日期: 2017-01-25
基金资助:

国家社会科学基金重大项目(14ZDB161), 中国科学院重点部署项目(KJZD–EW–L04)。

通讯作者: 朱莉琪, E-mail: zhulq@psych.ac.cn   
引用本文:   
李婷玉;刘黎;朱莉琪. 4~6岁幼儿经济博弈中的信任行为及其影响因素[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00017.
LI Tingyu; LIU Li; ZHU Liqi. 4~6 year-old children’s trust in economic game and its influencing factors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 17-27.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00017      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I1/17
[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] 屠兴勇;张琪;王泽英;何欣 . 信任氛围、内部人身份认知与员工角色内绩效:中介的调节效应[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(1): 83-93.
[3] 张林;刘燊;徐强;吴晓燕;杨梦圆. 日常环境中的暴力暴露对攻击行为的长期影响:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(1): 50-59.
[4] 李彩娜;孙颖;拓瑞;刘佳. 安全依恋对人际信任的影响:依恋焦虑的调节效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 989-1001.
[5] 钟毅平;杨子鹿;范伟. 自我—他人重叠对助人行为的影响:观点采择的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1050-1057.
[6] 王雨晴;游旭群;焦健;谌鹏飞. 观点采择:基于自我的推理及其个体差异[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1039-1049.
[7] 王益文;张振;原胜;郭丰波;何少颖;敬一鸣. 重复信任博弈的决策过程与结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1028-1038.
[8] 涂乙冬;陆欣欣;郭玮;王震. 道德型领导者得到了什么?道德型领导、团队平均领导?部属交换及领导者收益[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1378-1391.
[9] 夏瑞雪;周爱保;李世峰;徐科朋;任德云;朱婧. 观点采择在内隐情绪加工中的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(8): 1094-1102.
[10] 李锐;田晓明. 主管威权领导与下属前瞻行为:一个被中介的调节模型构建与检验[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(11): 1719-1733.
[11] 池丽萍. 信任:父母的代内相似和亲子的代际传递[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(3): 336-344.
[12] 望海军. 品牌信任和品牌情感:究竟谁导致了品牌忠诚?—— 一个动态研究[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 830-840 .
[13] 马华维,姚琦. 企业中的上级信任:作为一种行动意愿[J]. , 2012, 44(6): 818-829.
[14] 吴继霞,黄希庭. 诚信结构初探[J]. , 2012, 44(3): 354-368.
[15] 何晓丽,王振宏,王克静. 积极情绪对人际信任影响的线索效应[J]. , 2011, 43(12): 1408-1417.
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