社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00895

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以往关于为自己和代他人决策的冒险行为研究结果不一致, 这可能是因为以往的研究没有考虑决策情境和决策者人际特质等因素对于决策行为的影响。社会价值取向(social value orientation, SVO)是一种典型的人际特质, 是个体在对自我和他人资源分配时所表现出的社会偏好, 通常分为亲社会者和亲自我者。为探究SVO对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制, 采用为自己和陌生人分别完成多轮混合赌博游戏的任务。结果发现亲自我比亲社会者代他人决策更冒险。用模型量化的损失厌恶和对潜在损失的敏感度部分中介了自我-他人风险决策差异, 但只有对他人潜在损失的敏感度部分中介自我-他人决策的SVO效应。说明SVO会影响自我-他人风险决策, 且该效应可以通过对他人利益的关心程度起作用, 所以在自我-他人风险决策的研究中应将SVO这一决策者的人际特质因素考虑在内。

关键词: 风险决策, 社会价值取向, 自我-他人决策, 损失厌恶

Abstract:

Previous studies on risk-taking behaviors in decision-making for oneself and others are inconsistent, possibly because previous studies have not considered the influence of decision-making situations and the interpersonal characteristics of decision-makers on their decision-making behaviors. Social value orientation (SVO) is a typical interpersonal trait. SVO refers to the social preferences of individuals when they allocate resources to themselves and others. Individuals can usually be divided into prosocials and proselfs according SVO. The purpose of the present study was to explore the impact of SVO on self-other risk decision-making and its mechanisms. The integrative model of SVO implies that prosocials care more about the effects of decision-making on others than proselfs. Therefore, we hypothesized that proselfs might be more comfortable with risk than prosocials in making decisions on behalf of others, and that the level of concern for the interests of others might mediate the SVO effects of decision-makers on self-other risk decisions.
In the present study, the participants first filled out the SVO slider measure, then completed a mixed gambling game on the computer, and finally filled out the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) that measures empathy. The mixed gambling game included 480 rounds of gambling, each with two options: the uncertainty option, and the certainty option with a result of 0. Choosing uncertainty meant gambling, while choosing certainty meant not gambling. Participants were asked to choose whether to gamble for themselves and strangers in different situations. Uncertainty options were 50% probability to win a certain value (potential gain value, G) and 50% probability of losing a certain value (potential loss value, L). The values of G {20, 22, ..., 50} and the values of L {20, 22, ..., 48} were paired to obtain 240 combinations, which were randomly divided into four groups. The independent variables were beneficiary (self/other) and SVO (proself/prosocial). There were three dependent variables: level of risk-taking, loss aversion, and the degree of concern for potential gains and losses.
The results showed that prosocials exhibited similar risk-taking and sensitivity to potential gains and losses when making decisions for strangers, while proselfs showed more tolerance for risk-taking and less sensitivity to others’ gains and losses. Both prosocials and proselfs showed less loss aversion when making decisions for strangers than for themselves. The mediation-effect analysis indicated that the difference in self-other risk decision-making could be partially mediated by loss aversion and sensitivity to others’ potential losses, and the SVO effect on the differences in self-other risk decision-making could be partially mediated by the sensitivity to others’ potential losses.
These findings suggest that SVO can affect self-other risk decision-making and that this effect may play a role through the degree of concern for the interests of others, which indicates that SVO in decision-makers affects behaviors in making decisions for strangers. Therefore, in future studies of self-other risk decisions, SVO should be taken into account in the interpersonal characteristics of decision makers.

Key words: risk decision-making, social value orientation, self-other decision-making, loss aversion

中图分类号:

张银玲, 虞祯, 买晓琴. (2020). 社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制. 心理学报, 52(7), 895-908.

ZHANG Yinling, YU Zhen, MAI Xiaoqin. (2020). The influence of social value orientation on self-other risk decision-making and its mechanisms. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(7), 895-908.

图/表 5

图1 实验流程图

图2 两种受益者条件下对不同潜在损失/获益值情况的参赌频率热图注：白色表示参赌频率为1, 黑色表示参赌频率为0

图3 亲社会和亲自我者在不同情境下的参赌频率(A)、损失厌恶(B)、对潜在损益的敏感度(C)以及对他人潜在损失敏感度在亲社会者和亲自我者代他人冒险程度上的中介效应(D) 注：自己-G和自己-L分别表示为自己决策时的潜在获益值和潜在损失值, 他人-G和他人-L分别表示为他人决策时的潜在获益值和潜在损失值;a = 对他人潜在损失敏感度的SVO效应, b = 对他人潜在损失敏感度在代他人决策冒险程度上的效应, a×b = 间接效应, c = 总效应, c’ = 中介效应模型的直接效应;* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, 下同。

图4 社会价值取向与共情(A)和他人-自我冒险程度(B)的关系注：A中的人际反应指数(IRI)反映共情能力, B中的参赌频率差值指EV < 0时为他人和为自己决策冒险程度的差异。

表1 各变量的相关系数

变量	1	2	3	4
1 SVO (亲自我, 亲社会)	1
2 代他人决策L的偏回归系数	-0.273^*	1
3 EV<0时代他人决策的参赌频率	-0.515^***	0.524^***	1
4 EV<0时他人与自己参赌频率差	-0.510^***	0.472^***	0.873^***	1

参考文献 69

[1]	Albrecht, K., Volz, K. G., Sutter, M., Laibson, D. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. ( 2011). What is for me is not for you: brain correlates of intertemporal choice for self and other. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6( 2), 218-225. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq046 URL pmid: 20529885
[2]	Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J. R., & Erik, W. ( 2013). Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. SSRN Electronic Journal, 62(1), 29-36. from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2328642
[3]	Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. ( 2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34( 2), 163-175.
[4]	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.
[5]	Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. P. ( 1992). Individual differences in risk taking. Risk-taking behavior, 16( 6), 482-497.
[6]	Canessa, N., Crespi, C., Motterlini, M., Baud-Bovy, G., Chierchia, G., Pantaleo, G., … Caooa, S. ( 2013). The functional and structural neural basis of individual differences in loss aversion. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33( 36), 14307-14317. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0497-13.2013 URL pmid: 24005284
[7]	Chakravarty, S., Harrison, G. W., Haruvy, E. E., & Rutstrom, E. E. ( 2011). Are you risk averse over other people’s money?. Southern Economic Journal, 77( 4), 901-913.
[8]	Davis, M. H. ( 1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44( 1), 113-126.
[9]	Declerck, C. H., & Bogaert, S. ( 2008). Social value orientation: Related to empathy and the ability to read the mind in the eyes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148( 6), 711-726. URL pmid: 19058659
[10]	de Cremer, D., & van Lange, P. A. M. ( 2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15( S1), S5-S18.
[11]	de Martino, B., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R. ( 2010). Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107( 8), 3788-3792.
[12]	Emonds, G., Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Vandervliet, E. J. M., & Parizel, P. M. ( 2011). Comparing the neural basis of decision making in social dilemmas of people with different social value orientations, a fMRI study. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, Economics, 4( 1), 11-24.
[13]	Eriksen, K. W., & Kvaloy, O. ( 2010). Myopic investment management. Review of Finance, 14( 3), 521-542.
[14]	Evans, J. S. B. T. ( 2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7( 10), 454-459.
[15]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. G. ( 2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39( 2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 URL pmid: 17695343
[16]	Fermin, A. S. R., Sakagami, M., Kiyonari, T., Li, Y., Matsumoto, Y., & Yamagishi, T. ( 2016). Representation of economic preferences in the structure and function of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Scientific Reports, 6( 1), 20982.
[17]	Fu, X. L. (2016), Emotional psychology. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
	[ 傅小兰. (2016). 情绪心理学. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[18]	Genauck, A., Quester, S., Wüstenberg, T., Mörsen, C., Heinz, A., & Romanczuk-Seiferth, N. ( 2017). Reduced loss aversion in pathological gambling and alcohol dependence is associated with differential alterations in amygdala and prefrontal functioning. Scientific Reports, 7( 1), 16306. URL pmid: 29176580
[19]	Haruno, M., & Frith, C. D. ( 2010). Activity in the amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts social value orientation. Nature Neuroscience, 13( 2), 160-161. doi: 10.1038/nn.2468 URL pmid: 20023652
[20]	Haruno, M., Kimura, M., & Frith, C. D. ( 2014). Activity in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala underlies individual differences in prosocial and individualistic economic choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26( 8), 1861-1870. URL pmid: 24564471
[21]	Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. ( 2013). 不确定世界的理性选择——判断与决策心理学 (第 2 版, 谢晓非, 李纾等译). 北京: 人民邮电出版社.
[22]	Hayes, A. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51( 3), 335-337.
[23]	Hu, X., Xu, Z., & Mai, X. ( 2017). Social value orientation modulates the processing of outcome evaluation involving others. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12( 11), 1730-1739. URL pmid: 28981906
[24]	Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & Mcclelland, G. H. ( 2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6( 2), 115-134.
[25]	Jung, D., Sul, S., & Kim, H. ( 2013). Dissociable neural processes underlying risky decisions for self versus other. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 15.
[26]	Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. ( 1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47( 2), 263-292.
[27]	Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, K., & Shehata, M. ( 2009). The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30( 3), 368-380.
[28]	Kermer, D. A., Driver-Linn, E., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. ( 2006). Loss aversion is an affective forecasting error. Psychological Science, 17( 8), 649-653. URL pmid: 16913944
[29]	Li, S. (2016). Decision-making psychology: Equate-to-differentiate. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
	[ 李纾. (2016). 决策心理: 齐当别之道. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[30]	Li, Y. J., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., & Neuberg, S. L. ( 2012). Economic decision biases and fundamental motivations: How mating and self-protection alter loss aversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102( 3), 550-561.
[31]	Liu, S., Gonzalez, G., & Warneken, F. ( 2018). Worth the wait: children trade off delay and reward in self- and other-benefiting decisions. Developmental Science, 22( 1), e12702.
[32]	Liu, Y. F., Wang, P., Zhuang, J. Y., Zhong, J., Sun, Q. Z., & Liu, Y. ( 2014). Self-other differences in decision-making: questions, studies and reflection. Advances in Psychological Science, 22( 4), 580-587.
	[ 刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅. ( 2014). 自我-他人决策差异: 问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22( 4), 580-587.]
[33]	Liu, Y., Li, S., Lin, W., Li, W., Yan, X., Wang, X., … Ma, Y. ( 2019). Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala. Nature Neuroscience, 22( 4), 633-641. URL pmid: 30911182
[34]	Loewenstein, G. F., & O’Donoghue, T. ( 2004). Animal spirits: Affective and deliberative processes in economic behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal. from: https://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=539843
[35]	Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. ( 2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127( 2), 267-286. URL pmid: 11316014
[36]	Lu, J. Y., & Shang, X. S. ( 2018). Making decisions for others: Multi-dimensional psychological mechanisms and decision feelings. Advances in Psychological Science, 26( 9), 1545-1552.
	[ 陆静怡, 尚雪松. ( 2018). 为他人做决策: 多维度心理机制与决策体验. 心理科学进展, 26( 9), 1545-1552.]
[37]	McClintock, C. G. ( 1978). Social values: Their definition, measurement, and development. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12( 1), 121-137.
[38]	Mengarelli, F., Moretti, L., Faralla, V., Vindras, P., & Sirigu, A. ( 2014). Economic decisions for others: an exception to loss aversion law. PLoS ONE, 9( 1), e85042.
[39]	Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. ( 2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18( 1), 13-41.
[40]	Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. ( 2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6( 8), 771-781.
[41]	Ogawa, A., Ueshima, A., Inukai, K., & Kameda, T. ( 2018). Deciding for others as a neutral party recruits risk-neutral perspective-taking: Model-based behavioral and fMRI experiments. Scientific Reports, 8( 1), 12857. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31308-6 URL pmid: 30150657
[42]	Pahlke, J., Strasser, S., & Vieider, F. M. ( 2012). Risk-taking for others under accountability. Economics Letters, 114( 1), 102-105.
[43]	Park, S. Q., Kahnt, T., Dogan, A., Strang, S., Fehr, E., & Tobler, P. N. ( 2017). A neural link between generosity and happiness. Nature Communications, 8, 15964.
[44]	Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. ( 2014). Emotion and decision making: multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37( 1), 263-287.
[45]	Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C., & van Lange, P. A. M. ( 2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32( 1), 62-83.
[46]	Polman, E. ( 2012). Self-other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119( 2), 141-150.
[47]	Qi, Y., Wu, H., & Liu, X. ( 2018). Social value orientation modulates context-based social comparison preference in the outcome evaluation: an erp study. Neuropsychologia, 122, 135-144.
[48]	Qi, Y. Y., Wu, H. Y., & Liu, X. ( 2017). The influences of social value orientation on prosocial behaviors: The evidences from behavioral and neuroimaging studies. Chinese Science Bulletin, 62( 11), 1136-1144.
	[ 戚艳艳, 伍海燕, 刘勋. ( 2017). 社会价值取向对亲社会行为的影响: 来自行为和神经影像学的证据. 科学通报, 62( 11), 1136-1144.]
[49]	Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A., & Greene, J. D. ( 2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5, 3677.
[50]	Rong, X., Sun, B. H., Huang, X. Z., Cai, M. Y., & Li, W. J. ( 2010). Reliabilities and validities of Chinese version of interpersonal reactivity index. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18( 2), 158-160.
	[ 戎幸, 孙炳海, 黄小忠, 蔡旻颖, 李伟健. ( 2010). 人际反应指数量表的信度和效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 18( 2), 158-160.]
[51]	Shu, H., & Zhang, Y. X. ( 2008). Research methods in psychology: Experimental design and data analysis Beijing: People’s Education Press Experimental design and data analysis. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
	[ 舒华, 张亚旭. (2008). 心理学研究方法:实验设计和数据分析. 北京: 人民教育出版社.]
[52]	Sokol-Hessner, P., Camerer, C. F., Phelps, E. A. ( 2013). Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases amygdala responses to losses. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8( 3), 341-350.
[53]	Sokol-Hessner, P., Hsu, M., Curley, N. G., Delgado, M. R., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. ( 2009). Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals' loss aversion. Proceedings of the Natitonal Academy of Sciences, 106( 13), 5035-5040.
[54]	Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. ( 2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23( 5), 645-665. URL pmid: 11301544
[55]	Stone, E. R., Yates, A. J., & Caruthers, A. S. ( 2002). Risk taking in decision making for others versus the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32( 9), 1797-1824.
[56]	Sul, S., Tobler, P. N., Hein, G., Leiberg, S., Jung, D., Fehr, E., & Kim, H. ( 2015). Spatial gradient in value representation along the medial prefrontal cortex reflects individual differences in prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112( 25), 7851-7856.
[57]	Sun, Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., & Lu, J. ( 2016). Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157( 4), 502-512. URL pmid: 27685243
[58]	Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. ( 2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315( 5811), 515-518.
[59]	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5( 4), 297-323.
[60]	van Lange, P. A. M. ( 1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77( 2), 337-349. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 URL
[61]	van Lange, P. A. M. ( 2000). Beyond self-interest: A set of propositions relevant to interpersonal orientations. European Review of Social Psychology, 11( 1), 297-331.
[62]	van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Vugt, M. V. ( 2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29( 4), 375-384.
[63]	van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., de Bruin, E. M., & Joireman, J. A. ( 1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73( 4), 733-746. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.4.733 URL pmid: 9325591
[64]	van Lange, P. A. M., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. ( 2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51( 3), 279-284.
[65]	van Prooijen, J. W., Ståhl, T., Eek, D., & van Lange, P. A. M. ( 2012). Injustice for all or just for me? Social value orientation predicts responses to own versus other’s procedures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38( 10), 1247-1258. URL pmid: 22700243
[66]	Wei, Z., Zhao, Z., & Zheng, Y. ( 2016). Moderating effects of social value orientation on the effect of social influence in prosocial decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 952. URL pmid: 27445917
[67]	Wen, Z. L., & Ye, B. J. ( 2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. Advances in Psychological Science, 22( 5), 731-745.
	[ 温忠麟, 叶宝娟. ( 2014). 中介效应分析:方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22( 5), 731-745.]
[68]	Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Hu, X., & Mai, X. ( 2019). Increasing the difference in decision making for oneself and for others by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 185. URL pmid: 30787900
[69]	Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Chen, X., Shang, X., & Liu, Y. ( 2017). Decisions for others are less risk-averse in the gain frame and less risk-seeking in the loss frame than decisions for the self. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1601.