Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (12): 1537-1547    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01537
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中 影响偏差的影响
 耿晓伟; 姜宏艺
 (鲁东大学教育科学学院, 烟台 264011)
 Influence of regulatory focus and regulatory fit on impact biases in affective forecast
 GENG Xiaowei; JIANG Hongyi
 (School of Education Science, Ludong University, Yantai 264011, China)
全文: PDF(364 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要   现实生活中, 人们在决策前需要对决策可能带来的结果进行预测。人们往往会高估未来事件对其情绪的影响, 这被称为影响偏差。本研究从自我调节理论的视角出发, 考察了调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中影响偏差的影响。实验1和实验2分别在积极和消极情景中考察了调节定向对情感预测偏差的影响; 实验3和实验4分别在消极和积极情景中考察了调节匹配对情感预测偏差的影响。结果发现:(1)在对积极情感的预测中, 促进定向个体比防御定向个体出现更大的影响偏差; 在对消极情感的预测中, 防御定向个体比促进定向个体出现更大的影响偏差。(2)调节匹配比调节不匹配条件下, 个体会出现更大的影响偏差。因此, 情感预测中的影响偏差是个体实现目标的一种自我调节策略, 会受到调节定向和调节匹配的影响。
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
耿晓伟
姜宏艺
关键词 调节定向 调节匹配 情感预测 影响偏差    
Abstract: Our minor and major decision are often dependent on our predictions of how pleasant or unpleasant these events would make us feel, that is, our affective forecasts (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). People overestimate the intensity and duration of their affective reactions to the event in focus, which is called the impact bias (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). Most previous studies have focused on the cognitive sources of impact bias and the individual differences in impact bias. However, few studies have shed light on the motivated underpinnings of impact bias. The present research examined people’s overestimation of the hedonic impact of future events as a form of self -regulation. That is, sometimes people use impact bias to motivate themselves to actualize their goals. Thus, based on the self-regulatory theory, this study aimed to explore the effects of regulatory focus and regulatory fit on the impact biases. The hypotheses were: (i) in forecasting positive affect, individuals with promotive focus would show greater impact bias than those with preventive focus (H1a); (ii) in forecasting negative affect, individuals with preventive focus would show greater impact bias than those with promotive focus (H1b); (iii) regulatory fit would induce impact bias (H2). In Experiment 1, we examined the influences of regulatory focus on impact biases in forecasting positive affect. A total of 61 undergraduates were randomly divided into 2 conditions, specifically, promotive focus priming and preventive focus priming. They were then asked to finish a discriminability test. Before the test, they predicted the happiness of success in the test. After the test, they were told that they had succeeded in the test, and were asked to report their actual happiness of success in the test. Independent-sample t-test showed that participants with promotive focus overestimated the pleasant of success in discriminability test more than those with preventive focus. In Experiment 2, we tested the influences of regulatory focus on impact biases in forecasting negative affect. Participants’ predominant predisposition for a promotion or prevention state was measured first before they performed a memory task. Before the task, they predicted how happy they would be after a failure in the test. Then, they were told that they failed in the memory test and were asked to evaluate how happy they were. Independent-sample t-test showed that participants with preventive focus overestimated the unhappiness of failure in memory test more than those with promotive focus. In Experiment 3, we tested the influence of regulatory fit on impact biases in forecasting negative affect by 2 (Regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) × 2 (Strategy: eagerness vs vigilance) between-subject design. A total of 120 undergraduates were randomly divided into 4 groups and were asked to finish a memory test. Before the test, they predicted the unhappiness of failure in the test. After the test, they were told that they had failed in the test, and were asked to report their actual unhappiness of the failure in the test. The results showed that participants overestimate the unhappiness of failure in memory test in the condition of regulatory fit more than in the regulatory non-fit condition. In Experiment 4, we tested the effect of regulatory fit on impact bias in forecasting positive affect. A total of 128 undergraduates were randomly divided into 4 groups and were asked to finish a finding differences test. Before the test, they predicted how happy they would be after the success in the test. After the test, they were told that they had succeeded in the test, and were asked to report their actual happiness of the success. The results showed that participants overestimate the happiness in the condition of regulatory fit more than regulatory non-fit condition. The present research investigated the motivated underpinning of impact bias based under the theory of self-regulatory, which helps our further understanding of the mechanism of impact bias. In addition, it can also help us to manage the improvement of the work engagement of employees. Limitations and further research have been discussed as well.
Key wordsregulatory focus    regulatory fit    affective forecast    impact bias
收稿日期: 2016-10-17      出版日期: 2017-10-25
ZTFLH:     
  B849:C91  
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目(71401068), 教育部人文社科项目(14YJCZH036)资助。
通讯作者: 耿晓伟, E-mail: fengandwei@126.com      E-mail:
引用本文:   
耿晓伟, 姜宏艺.  调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中 影响偏差的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1537-1547.
GENG Xiaowei, JIANG Hongyi.  Influence of regulatory focus and regulatory fit on impact biases in affective forecast. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1537-1547.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01537      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I12/1537
[1] 杨文琪;李强;郭名扬;范谦;何伊丽. 权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[2] 黄敏学;王艺婷; 廖俊云;刘茂红. 评论不一致性对消费者的双面影响:产品属性与调节定向的调节[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 370-382.
[3] 杜晓梦;赵占波;崔晓. 评论效价、新产品类型与调节定向对在线评论有用性的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 555-568.
[4] 汪涛;谢志鹏;崔楠. 和品牌聊聊天 —— 拟人化沟通对消费者品牌态度影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(7): 987-999.
[5] 段锦云;周冉;陆文娟;李晶;朱宜超. 不同反应线索条件下调节匹配对建议采纳的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(1): 104-113.
[6] 汪玲,林晖芸,逄晓鸣. 特质性与情境性调节定向匹配效应的一致性[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(05): 553-560.
[7] 姚琦,马华维,乐国安. 期望与绩效的关系: 调节定向的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(06): 704-714.
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