Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (5) : 633-644     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00633
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Effects of others’ reference points and psychological distance on self-other welfare tradeoff in gain and loss situations
GAO Juan1,WANG Peng1,Xiao Tian WANG2,SUN Qian1,LIU Yongfang1()
1 School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
2 School of Humanities and Social Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518172, China
Download: PDF(719 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    

Previous studies on self-other welfare tradeoff focus more on the gain situations than the loss situations. Numerous studies have explored the influence of social distance on the tradeoff but ignored the complex interactions among gain and loss situations, others’ reference points, and psychological distance.
This study investigated the influences of others’ reference points and psychological distance on self-other welfare tradeoff in gain and loss situations by using welfare tradeoff rate (WTR) as an index of altruistic degree in self-other welfare tradeoff. In Experiment 1, the effect of WTR on the gain and loss situations and its mechanism were explored. In Experiment 2, others’ reference points were added as another factor to examine their influence on WTR and interaction with the gain and loss situations. In Experiment 3, the psychological distance variable was further introduced to investigate its influence on WTR and interaction with the gain and loss situations and others’ reference points.
Results of Experiment 1 showed no significant difference in WTR between gain and loss situations. In Experiment 2, WTR in the gain situation was found to be significantly higher than that in the loss situation, and WTR was reduced when others approached the bottom line, goal, and status quo. Further analyses showed that the WTR under the gain situation was significantly higher than that under the loss situation when others approached the bottom line. Meanwhile, no significant difference was observed in the WTR under the gain and loss situations when others approached the status quo and goal. In Experiment 3, the WTR of close psychological distance was found to be higher than that of far psychological distance, and the main effect of gain and loss situations disappeared. Psychological distance had complex interaction effects with gain and loss situations and others’ reference points.
These findings contribute to a deep understanding of the asymmetric effects of gain and loss situations, tri-reference-point theory, and related findings from studies on social discounting and self-other decision- making differences. They also have certain practical implications for individuals, organizations, and countries in understanding and dealing with the relationships between ones’ selves and others.

Keywords altruism      welfare tradeoff ratio      gains and losses      reference points      psychological distance     
PACS:  B849:C91  
Corresponding Authors: Yongfang LIU     E-mail:
Issue Date: 26 March 2020
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
GAO Juan,WANG Peng,Xiao Tian WANG,SUN Qian,LIU Yongfang. Effects of others’ reference points and psychological distance on self-other welfare tradeoff in gain and loss situations[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2020, 52(5): 633-644.
URL:     OR
[1] Aquino K., Steisel V., & Kay A . (1992). The effects of resource distribution, voice, and decision framing on the provision of public goods. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 665-687.
[2] Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D . (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[3] Beisswanger A. H., Stone E. R., Hupp J. M., & Allgaier L . (2003). Risk taking in relationships: Differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-135.
[4] Brewer M. B., & Kramer R. M . (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543-549.
[5] Burnstein E., Crandall C., & Kitayama S . (1994). Some neo- Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773-789.
[6] Carlo G., Mestre M. V., Samper P., Tur A., & Armenta B. E . (2011). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 116-124.
[7] Delton A. W . (2010). A psychological calculus for welfare tradeoffs (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Santa Barbara: University of California.
[8] Delton A. W., & Robertson T. E . (2016). How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: Evolution, computation, and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 12-16.
[9] Dreber A., Ellingsen T., Johannesson M., & Rand D. G . (2013). Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 349-371.
[10] Duan J., Liu Y. F., & He Q . (2012). The effects of decision makers' roles and related variables on risk preferences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(3), 369-376.
[10] [ 段婧, 刘永芳, 何琪 . (2012). 决策者角色及相关变量对风险偏好的影响. 心理学报, 44(3), 369-376.]
[11] Fehr E., Bernhard H., & Rockenbach B . (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454(28), 1079-1083.
[12] Fehr E., & Schmidt K. M . (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
[13] Goerg S. J., Rand D. G., & Walkowitz G . (2017). Framing effects in the prisoner's dilemma but not in the dictator game. Retrieved Feb 8, 2017 from
[14] Handgraaf M. J. J., van Dijk E., Vermunt R. C., Wilke H. A. M., & de Dreu C. K. W . (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1136-1149.
[15] He G. B., & Jiang D . (2013). The effect of task frames and altruism on social discounting. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(10), 1131-1146.
[15] [ 何贵兵, 蒋多 . (2013). 任务框架及利他人格对社会折扣的影响. 心理学报, 45(10), 1131-1146.]
[16] He G. B., Yang X. W., & Jiang D . (2017). The effect of altruism on social discounting of environmental gain and loss. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(10), 1334-1343.
[16] [ 何贵兵, 杨鑫蔚, 蒋多 . (2017). 环境损益的社会折扣: 利他人格的影响. 心理学报, 49(10), 1334-1343.]
[17] Hu H. G . (1999). Consistency of ideological system: Discussion on "Adam Smith Problem". Economic Science, 21(4), 121-128.
[17] [ 胡怀国 . (1999). 斯密思想体系的一致性: “斯密问题”略论. 经济科学, 21(4), 121-128.]
[18] Jones B. A., & Rachlin H . (2006). Social discounting. Psychological Science, 17(4), 283-286.
[19] Jones B. A., & Rachlin H . (2009). Delay, probability, and social discounting in a public goods game. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91(1), 61-73.
[20] Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H . (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 158, 1325-1348.
[21] Kahneman D., & Tversky A . (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
[22] Kahneman D., & Tversky A . (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
[23] Kennedy D., & Norman C . (2005). What don't we know? Science, 309(5731), 75-75.
[24] Kirkpatrick M., Delton A. W., Robertson T. E., & de Wit H . (2015). Prosocial effects of MDMA: A measure of generosity. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29(6), 661-668.
[25] Klimecki O. M., Mayer S. V., Jusyte A., Scheeff J., & Schönenberg M . (2016). Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Scientific Reports, 6(3), 19-61.
[26] Krupka E. L., & Weber R. A . (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 495-524.
[27] Levitt S. D., & List J. A . (2008). Homo economicus evolves. Science, 319(5865), 909-910.
[28] Liu Y. F., Bi Y. F., & Wang H. Y . (2010). The effects of emotions and task frames on risk preferences in self decision making and anticipating others’ decisions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(3), 317-324.
[28] [ 刘永芳, 毕玉芳, 王怀勇 . (2010). 情绪和任务框架对自我和预期他人决策时风险偏好的影响. 心理学报, 42(3), 317-324.]
[29] Liu Y. F., Fan W. J., & Hou R. X . (2019). From theory, research, to applications: Richard H. Thaler and his contributions. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(3), 381-393.
[29] [ 刘永芳, 范雯健, 侯日霞 . (2019). 从理论到研究, 再到应用: 塞勒及其贡献. 心理科学进展, 27(3), 381-393.]
[30] McCullough M. E., Kurzban R., & Tabak B. A . (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 1-15.
[31] Novemsky N., & Kahneman D . (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 119-128.
[32] Polman E . (2010). Information distortion in self-other decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 432-435.
[33] Polman E . (2012). Self-other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141-150.
[34] Polman E., & Emich K. J . (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
[35] Rilling J. K., & Sanfey A. G . (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 23-48.
[36] Smith A . (2015). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. (Guo, D. L, & Wang, Y. N, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. (Original work published in 1880)
[36] [ 亚当·斯密 . (2015). 国富论. 郭大力, 王亚南译. 商务印书馆. (原著出版于1880年)]
[37] Smith A . (2015). The theory of moral sentiments. (Jiang, Z. Q, Qin, B. Y, Zhu, Z. L, & Shen, K. Z, Trans.) Beijing: The Commercial Press. (Original work published 1833)
[37] [ 亚当·斯密 . (2015). 道德情操论. 蒋自强, 钦北愚, 朱钟棣, 沈凯璋译. 商务印书馆. (原著出版于1833年)]
[38] Smith A., Pedersen E. J., Forster D. E., McCullough M. E., & Lieberman D . (2017). Cooperation: The roles of interpersonal value and gratitude. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 695-703.
[39] Sonnemans J., Schram A., & Offerman T . (1998). Public good provision and public bad prevention: The effect of framing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(1), 143-161.
[40] Stone E. R., & 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.
[41] Su Y. J., Zhang H., Zhang K . (2012). Social decision-making: The equilibrium between self interest and the interests of others. Journal of Psychological Science, 35(6), 1423-1428.
[41] [ 苏彦捷, 张慧, 张康 . (2012). 社会决策: 自我利益与他人利益的权衡. 心理科学, 35(6), 1423-1428.]
[42] Sze J. A., Gyurak A., Goodkind M. S., & Levenson R. W . (2012). Greater emotional empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12(5), 1129-1140.
[43] Tooby J., Cosmides L., Sell A., Lieberman D., & Sznycer D . (2008). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. In A. J. Elliot (ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 251-271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[44] Trope Y., & Liberman N . (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[45] Wallach M. A., & Wing C. W . (1968). Is risk a value? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(1), 101-106.
[46] Wang X. T., & Johnson G. J . (2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 141(4), 743-756.
[47] Wang X. T., & Wang P . (2013). Tri-reference point theory of decision making: From principles to applications. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(8), 1331-1346.
[47] [ 王晓田, 王鹏 . (2013). 决策的三参照点理论: 从原理到应用. 心理科学进展, 21(8), 1331-1346.]
[48] Xie X. F., & Wang X. T . (2002). Achievement motive and opportunity-threat perception. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34(2), 192-199.
[48] [ 谢晓非, 王晓田 . (2002). 成就动机与机会–威胁认知. 心理学报, 34(2), 192-199]
[49] Xu F. M., Jiang D., Zhang H., Li O., Kong, S X., & Shi, Y W . (2016). The effect of psychological distance on the base-rate neglect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(10), 1292-1301.
[49] [ 徐富明, 蒋多, 张慧, 李欧, 孔诗晓, 史燕伟 . (2016). 心理距离对基线比例忽略的影响. 心理学报, 48(10), 1292-1301.]
[50] Zhang X. Y., Chen X. Y., Gao Y., Liu Y. J. & Liu Y. F . (2018). Self-promotion hypothesis: The impact of self-esteem on self-other discrepancies in decision making under risk. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 26-30.
[51] Zhang W., Liu Y. F., Sun Q. Z., Hu Q. X., & Liu Y . (2014). Risk preference in making romantic relationship decisions for others with different psychological distance. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 46(10), 1580-1590.
[51] [ 张葳, 刘永芳, 孙庆洲, 胡启旭, 刘毅 . (2014). 异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策的风险偏好. 心理学报, 46(10), 1580-1590.]
[52] Zhao H. L., Xu F. J., Guo Y. Y., & Shu S. L . (2018). Difference of prosocial behavior between social classes: Dual perspective of giving and receiving. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(5), 841-846.
[52] [ 赵华丽, 徐凤娇, 郭永玉, 舒首立 . (2018). 亲社会行为的阶层差异: 施与受的双重视角. 中国临床心理学杂志, 26(5), 841-846.]
[53] Zhao Q. D., Liu Y. F., Duan J., & Xu S . (2013). The effect of psychological distance and decision makers’ roles on risk decision. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 19( 1) 26-33.
[53] [ 赵秋荻, 刘永芳, 段婧, 徐沙 . (2013). 心理距离与决策者角色对风险决策的影响. 应用心理学, 19(1), 26-33.]
[54] Zhong Y. L., & Liu Y. F . (2013). Risk preferences in monetary auction tasks: The roles of self-esteem levels and genders. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(3), 353-362.
[54] [ 仲轶璐, 刘永芳 . (2013). 金钱竞拍任务上的风险偏好: 自尊水平和性别的作用. 心理学报, 45(3), 353-362.]
[1] HE Guibing, YANG Xinwei, JIANG Duo.  The effect of altruism on social discounting of environmental gain and loss[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(10): 1334-1343.
[2] HE Ning; ZHU Yunli. Self-love and other-love: Research on the relationships among narcissism, empathy and implicit altruism[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(2): 199-210.
[3] XU Fuming; JIANG Duo; ZHANG Hui; LI Ou; KONG Shixiao; SHI Yanwei. The effect of psychological distance on the base-rate neglect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1292-1301.
[4] ZHANG Feng;SHEN Zhimei. The Absence of the Automatic Association between Behavioral Representation Level and Psychological Distance: Evidence from a Picture-word Stroop Task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(9): 1317-1330.
[5] LING Bin;WANG Zhongming. The Effects of Temporal Distance on Confirmatory Information Processing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(8): 1176-1191.
[6] CHEN Haixian;HE Guibing. The Effect of Psychological Distance on Intertemporal Choice and Risky Choice[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(5): 677-690.
[7] ZHANG Wei; LIU Yongfang; SUN Qingzhou; HU Qixu ; LIU Yi. Risk Preference in Making Romantic Relationship Decisions for Others with Different Psychological Distance[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(10): 1580-1590.
[8] HE Guibing;JIANG Duo. The Effect of Task Frames and Altruism on Social Discounting[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(10): 1131-1146.
[9] CHEN Hai-Xian, HE Gui-Bing. The Effect of Construal Level on Intertemporal Choice and Risky Choice[J]. , 2011, 43(04): 442-452.
[10] CHAI Jun-Wu,ZHAO Guang-Zhi,HE Wei. Impacts of Construal Level on Brand Association and Brand Extension Evaluation[J]. , 2011, 43(02): 175-187.
[11] Lei-Chang. Some of the Whats, Whos, and Whens Related to Evolutionary Psychology[J]. , 2007, 39(03): 556-570.
[12] Ling-Wenquan,Yang-Huijun,Fang-Liluo. Perceived Organizational Support(POS) of the Employees[J]. , 2006, 38(02): 281-287.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech