ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (10): 1591-1602.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01591

• 论文 • 上一篇    



  1. (苏州大学心理学系; 教育部人文社科重点研究基地-苏州大学中国特色城镇化研究中心, 苏州 215123)
  • 收稿日期:2013-12-01 出版日期:2014-10-25 发布日期:2014-10-25
  • 通讯作者: 段锦云, E-mail:
  • 基金资助:


The Influence of Prime of Positive Self-label on Advice-taking

DUAN Jinyun; ZHOU Ran; GU Xiaohua   

  1. (Department of Psychology, Soochow University; Key Research Institute of Education Ministry-Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China)
  • Received:2013-12-01 Online:2014-10-25 Published:2014-10-25
  • Contact: DUAN Jinyun, E-mail:


研究设想给决策者“贴标签”会影响其建议采纳, 即当决策者受到某一词语或文字(标签)的描述, 其往往向标签所预示的方向发展。通过三个依次递进的研究, 探讨在有无获益希望及公开与否三种不同组合的决策场景中, 启动决策者正面自我标签对其建议采纳的影响。实验1采用2(正面自我标签:启动/未启动)×2(获益希望:有/无)组间设计, 实验2和实验3分别进一步研究无获益希望的公开场景和有希望获益的不公开场景, 分别以91、135和96名在校大学生为被试。结果发现:决策者正面自我标签启动使得其更容易采纳建议; 无获益希望公开条件下, 受印象管理或社会赞许性影响而显著提高建议采纳; 有获益希望的公开条件下, 决策者正面自我标签启动使得其积极情绪得到提升, 并进而促进其采纳建议, 而积极意义发现在积极情绪和建议采纳之间起中介作用。

关键词: 建议采纳, 标签效应, 认知失调, 积极情绪


Advice taking, which is a decision-making process formulated by decision-makers with the reference of others’ suggestions, has become a research hotspot as the interactive process between advisers and decision-makers, and receives more attention in the field of behavioral decision making. In this study, we proposed that the labeling for decision maker is a potential predictor in the advice taking process. Specifically, whether the decision-maker takes the advice from others will be influenced effectively by the descriptions (labeling stick to the decision maker). This study assumed that labeling in advance will exert an influence on advice taking by different mechanism in different decision-making scenarios. Using widely-used “Judge-Advisor System (JAS)” experimental model, this paper explored the influence of the prime of positive self-labeling on advice taking in three decision making scenarios which were decided by whether there are hopes to benefit or not, and whether they are public or in private. 3 studies have been done in this research in a gradually deepening logical sequence. Study 1 included preliminary and formal experiments, and used 2 (Positive Self-labeling Priming: Yes/No) × 2 (Hope of Benefit: Yes/No) between-subject design to explore whether the advice taking process and the cognitive dissonance of the decision maker will be influenced by positive self-labeling in the public condition. Study 2 used between-subject design to further explore whether the prime of positive self-labeling will influence the advice taking in the private condition of the scenario that there is likely no benefit will be available. Further, study 3 explored whether the positive emotion of decision-makers will be promoted by the prime of positive self-labeling of decision makers, and whether positive meaning-finding acts as a mediator between the positive emotion and advice taking under the public condition of hopefully benefiting decision scene. The participants are university students and the number is 91 (experiment 1), 135 (experiment 2) and 96 (experiment 3) respectively. The results found that the prime of the positive self-labeling of decision makers would promote them to take the advice no matter in the hopefully benefiting decision scene or in the likely no benefit scene, but it only caused cognitive dissonance of decision makers in no- benefiting decision scene in the public condition, and there is not a significant effect on the advice taking and cognitive dissonance. It also showed that positive meaning-finding mediated the effect between the positive emotion and advice taking under the public condition of hopefully benefiting decision scene. The implications, limitations and future directions of the study were discussed as well.

Key words: advice taking, labeling effect, cognitive dissonance, positive emotion