心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (3): 291-305.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00291
收稿日期:
2020-08-04
发布日期:
2021-01-27
出版日期:
2021-03-25
通讯作者:
陆静怡
E-mail:jylu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
SHANG Xuesong, CHEN Zhuo, LU Jingyi()
Received:
2020-08-04
Online:
2021-01-27
Published:
2021-03-25
Contact:
LU Jingyi
E-mail:jylu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn
摘要:
好心帮倒忙事件时有发生, 帮忙失败的施助者往往认为受助者会苛责自己, 因而可能不愿再次提供帮助。这种预测准确吗?通过6个研究( N = 1763), 对比施助者对受助者反应的预测和受助者的实际反应, 发现了施助者在好心帮倒忙时的预测偏差:他们高估了受助者的负面反应。而在帮忙成功时, 施助者未出现预测偏差或预测偏差的强度较弱。导致该预测偏差的原因是, 施助者更为关注自身的能力, 以为受助者也关注自己的能力, 而受助者更为在意施助者的温暖程度。
中图分类号:
尚雪松, 陈卓, 陆静怡. (2021). 帮忙失败后我会被差评吗?好心帮倒忙中的预测偏差. 心理学报, 53(3), 291-305.
SHANG Xuesong, CHEN Zhuo, LU Jingyi. (2021). “Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles?” A misprediction about help recipients. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(3), 291-305.
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 5.41 (1.61) | 6.12 (1.05) | F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003 |
失败 | -0.14 (2.83) | 2.01 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 5.31 (1.52) | 6.26 (0.97) | F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001 |
失败 | -0.44 (3.14) | 2.10 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 6.14 (0.80) | 6.35 (0.61) | F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094 |
失败 | 4.61 (1.10) | 5.38 (1.34) | F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.89 (0.94) | 5.93 (0.93) | F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792 |
失败 | 4.52 (1.12) | 5.15 (1.09) | F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001 |
表1 施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究1)
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 5.41 (1.61) | 6.12 (1.05) | F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003 |
失败 | -0.14 (2.83) | 2.01 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 5.31 (1.52) | 6.26 (0.97) | F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001 |
失败 | -0.44 (3.14) | 2.10 (2.67) | F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 6.14 (0.80) | 6.35 (0.61) | F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094 |
失败 | 4.61 (1.10) | 5.38 (1.34) | F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.89 (0.94) | 5.93 (0.93) | F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792 |
失败 | 4.52 (1.12) | 5.15 (1.09) | F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001 |
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 4.80 (1.71) | 5.64 (1.42) | F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001 |
失败 | -2.34 (2.02) | -0.44 (2.34) | F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 5.01 (1.61) | 5.60 (1.62) | F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004 |
失败 | -2.26 (2.23) | -0.76 (2.44) | F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.77 (0.90) | 5.79 (0.94) | F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915 |
失败 | 3.31 (1.28) | 3.94 (1.49) | F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.45 (1.06) | 5.56 (1.00) | F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395 |
失败 | 3.59 (0.94) | 4.25 (0.98) | F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001 |
受助者的评分 | |||
成功 | 0.72 (0.43) | 0.84 (0.39) | F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029 |
失败 | -0.92 (0.50) | -0.48 (0.56) | F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001 |
表2 施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究2a)
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 4.80 (1.71) | 5.64 (1.42) | F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001 |
失败 | -2.34 (2.02) | -0.44 (2.34) | F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 5.01 (1.61) | 5.60 (1.62) | F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004 |
失败 | -2.26 (2.23) | -0.76 (2.44) | F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.77 (0.90) | 5.79 (0.94) | F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915 |
失败 | 3.31 (1.28) | 3.94 (1.49) | F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.45 (1.06) | 5.56 (1.00) | F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395 |
失败 | 3.59 (0.94) | 4.25 (0.98) | F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001 |
受助者的评分 | |||
成功 | 0.72 (0.43) | 0.84 (0.39) | F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029 |
失败 | -0.92 (0.50) | -0.48 (0.56) | F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001 |
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 5.23 (2.00) | 6.11 (1.10) | F(1, 141) = 10.82, p = 0.001 |
失败 | -0.68 (2.56) | 2.04 (3.16) | F(1, 140) = 31.81, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 4.90 (1.99) | 5.60 (1.72) | F(1, 141) = 5.03, p = 0.027 |
失败 | -0.51 (2.62) | 1.56 (3.15) | F(1, 140) = 18.13, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 6.28 (0.80) | 6.24 (0.91) | F(1, 141) = 0.10, p = 0.751 |
失败 | 3.83 (1.32) | 4.66 (1.60) | F(1, 140) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.89 (0.96) | 5.93 (0.92) | F(1, 141) = 0.08, p = 0.785 |
失败 | 4.15 (1.22) | 4.93 (1.19) | F(1, 140) = 14.77, p < 0.001 |
受助者的评分 | |||
成功 | 0.57 (0.41) | 0.69 (0.39) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.091 |
失败 | -0.95 (0.67) | -0.33 (0.81) | F(1, 140) = 24.64, p < 0.001 |
施助者的能力 | |||
成功 | 5.76 (0.85) | 6.00 (0.81) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.086 |
失败 | 3.37 (1.10) | 4.11 (1.29) | F(1, 140) = 13.74, p < 0.001 |
施助者的温暖 | |||
成功 | 6.44 (0.71) | 6.56 (0.73) | F(1, 141) = 0.97, p = 0.325 |
失败 | 5.28 (1.21) | 6.08 (1.01) | F(1, 140) = 18.42, p < 0.001 |
表3 施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究4)
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | |||
成功 | 5.23 (2.00) | 6.11 (1.10) | F(1, 141) = 10.82, p = 0.001 |
失败 | -0.68 (2.56) | 2.04 (3.16) | F(1, 140) = 31.81, p < 0.001 |
受助者的满意程度 | |||
成功 | 4.90 (1.99) | 5.60 (1.72) | F(1, 141) = 5.03, p = 0.027 |
失败 | -0.51 (2.62) | 1.56 (3.15) | F(1, 140) = 18.13, p < 0.001 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | |||
成功 | 6.28 (0.80) | 6.24 (0.91) | F(1, 141) = 0.10, p = 0.751 |
失败 | 3.83 (1.32) | 4.66 (1.60) | F(1, 140) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | |||
成功 | 5.89 (0.96) | 5.93 (0.92) | F(1, 141) = 0.08, p = 0.785 |
失败 | 4.15 (1.22) | 4.93 (1.19) | F(1, 140) = 14.77, p < 0.001 |
受助者的评分 | |||
成功 | 0.57 (0.41) | 0.69 (0.39) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.091 |
失败 | -0.95 (0.67) | -0.33 (0.81) | F(1, 140) = 24.64, p < 0.001 |
施助者的能力 | |||
成功 | 5.76 (0.85) | 6.00 (0.81) | F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.086 |
失败 | 3.37 (1.10) | 4.11 (1.29) | F(1, 140) = 13.74, p < 0.001 |
施助者的温暖 | |||
成功 | 6.44 (0.71) | 6.56 (0.73) | F(1, 141) = 0.97, p = 0.325 |
失败 | 5.28 (1.21) | 6.08 (1.01) | F(1, 140) = 18.42, p < 0.001 |
角色 | 与施助者能力相关 | 与施助者的温暖相关 | 其他 |
---|---|---|---|
施助者 | 我帮了倒忙。 觉得有点愧疚, 没有帮好忙。 | 我是出于好心才帮忙搬行李的。 我也是好心。 | 是什么物品? 小孙现在心里是什么感受? |
受助者 | 他太毛手毛脚了。 他有点粗心。 | 不怪小孙, 他也是好心, 感谢他。 物品易碎, 他帮我搬是好心。 | 我太倒霉了。 为什么电梯偏偏在修理? |
表4 分类示例(研究5)
角色 | 与施助者能力相关 | 与施助者的温暖相关 | 其他 |
---|---|---|---|
施助者 | 我帮了倒忙。 觉得有点愧疚, 没有帮好忙。 | 我是出于好心才帮忙搬行李的。 我也是好心。 | 是什么物品? 小孙现在心里是什么感受? |
受助者 | 他太毛手毛脚了。 他有点粗心。 | 不怪小孙, 他也是好心, 感谢他。 物品易碎, 他帮我搬是好心。 | 我太倒霉了。 为什么电梯偏偏在修理? |
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | -0.56 (2.74) | 0.82 (3.16) | F(1, 121) = 6.71, p = 0.011 |
受助者的满意程度 | -1.10 (2.55) | 0.37 (2.92) | F(1, 121) = 8.81, p = 0.004 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | 3.38 (1.31) | 4.06 (1.70) | F(1, 121) = 6.32, p = 0.013 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | 4.03 (1.06) | 4.50 (0.97) | F(1, 121) = 6.48, p = 0.012 |
受助者的评分 | -0.24 (0.73) | 0.23 (0.81) | F(1, 121) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
质询顺序指数 | 0.56 (0.83) | 0.06 (0.96) | F(1, 105) = 8.23, p = 0.005 |
质询内容指数 | 0.42 (0.76) | -0.01 (0.76) | F(1, 105) = 8.24, p = 0.005 |
表5 施助者的预测与受助者的判断(研究5)
因变量 | 施助者的预测 M (SD) | 受助者的判断 M (SD) | 差异检验 |
---|---|---|---|
受助者的感激程度 | -0.56 (2.74) | 0.82 (3.16) | F(1, 121) = 6.71, p = 0.011 |
受助者的满意程度 | -1.10 (2.55) | 0.37 (2.92) | F(1, 121) = 8.81, p = 0.004 |
受助者的再次求助意愿 | 3.38 (1.31) | 4.06 (1.70) | F(1, 121) = 6.32, p = 0.013 |
受助者的推荐意愿 | 4.03 (1.06) | 4.50 (0.97) | F(1, 121) = 6.48, p = 0.012 |
受助者的评分 | -0.24 (0.73) | 0.23 (0.81) | F(1, 121) = 11.37, p = 0.001 |
质询顺序指数 | 0.56 (0.83) | 0.06 (0.96) | F(1, 105) = 8.23, p = 0.005 |
质询内容指数 | 0.42 (0.76) | -0.01 (0.76) | F(1, 105) = 8.24, p = 0.005 |
[1] |
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763.
URL pmid: 17983298 |
[2] |
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 URL |
[3] |
Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, J. F. (2010). ‘‘Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 402-409.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.015 URL |
[4] |
Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think? Psychological Science, 29, 1742-1756.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618783714 URL pmid: 30183512 |
[5] | Cooney, G., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). The novelty penalty: Why do people like talking about new experiences but hearing about old ones? Psychological Science, 28, 380-394. |
[6] |
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 URL pmid: 17188552 |
[7] |
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
URL pmid: 12051578 |
[8] | Flynn, F. J., & Bohns, V. K. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128-143. |
[9] | Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., & Chen, P. (2019). The status signals paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 690-696. |
[10] |
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own action and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.
doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211 URL pmid: 10707330 |
[11] | Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2018). When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: The role of social distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 365-382. |
[12] |
Hsee, C. K., & Tang, J. N. (2007). Sun and water: On a modulus-based measurement of happiness. Emotion, 7, 213-218.
URL pmid: 17352577 |
[13] |
Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461-474.
URL pmid: 17470000 |
[14] | Jung, M. H., Moon, A., & Nelson, L. D. (2020). Overestimating the valuations and preference of others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1193-1214. |
[15] | Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. |
[16] | Krueger, J., & Clement, R. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 596-610. |
[17] |
Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29, 1423-1435.
URL pmid: 29949445 |
[18] | Kupor, D., Flynn, F., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Half a gift is not half-hearted: A giver-receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1-9. |
[19] | Levine, E. E., & Cohen, T. R. (2018). You can handle the truth: Mispredicting the consequences of honest communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1400-1429. |
[20] | Lu, J., & Xie, X. (2014). To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 47-55. |
[21] |
Newark, D. A., Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 18-29.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.001 URL |
[22] |
Reit, E. S., & Critcher, C. R. (2020). The commonness fallacy: Commonly chosen options have less choice appeal than people think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 1-21.
URL pmid: 31464482 |
[23] |
Schroeder, J., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 146, 1106-1125.
URL pmid: 28557510 |
[24] |
Scopelliti, I., Loewenstein, G., & Vosgerau, J. (2015). You call it “self-exuberance”; I call it “bragging”: Miscalibrated predictions of emotional responses to self-promotion. Psychological Science, 26, 903-914.
URL pmid: 25953948 |
[25] | Spitzmuller, M., & van Dyne, L. (2013). Proactive and reactive helping: Contrasting the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 560-580. |
[26] | Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 151-162. |
[27] | Wang, Y., & Xie, X. (2019). Prediction errors in helping and helping-seeking: Causes and coping. Advances in Psychological Science, 27, 121-131. |
[ 王逸璐, 谢晓非. (2019). 帮助情境中的预测偏差: 成因与应对. 心理科学进展, 27, 121-131.] | |
[28] | Wang, Z., Mao, H., Li, Y. J., & Liu, F. (2017). Smile big or not? Effects of smile intensity on perceptions of warmth and competence. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 787-805. |
[29] |
Wojciszke, B.(1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 7, 222-232.
URL pmid: 6035318 |
[30] | Wojciszke, B.(2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155-188. |
[31] | Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264. |
[32] |
Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 796-810.
doi: 10.1037/a0016233 URL pmid: 19857002 |
[1] | 祝孝亮, 赵鑫. 执行功能在不同年级儿童数学能力中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 696-710. |
[2] | 邱天, 江南, 陆静怡. 切忌班门弄斧?低估在评价者擅长领域展现能力的好处[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 766-780. |
[3] | 蒋旭婷, 吴小玥, 范雪灵, 贺伟. 员工愤怒表达对领导力涌现的影响:温暖和能力感知的中介作用以及愤怒道歉的弥补作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 812-830. |
[4] | 王辉, 王颖, 季晓得, 纪铭. 辩证领导行为及其对企业创新能力和绩效的影响: 一项基于中国传统文化的领导行为探究[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(3): 374-389. |
[5] | 成童, 程南华, 王美芳, 王争艳. 学步期焦虑影响5岁幼儿创造力:一般认知和掌握动机的链式中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(7): 799-812. |
[6] | 汤一鹏, 贾荣雯, 龙立荣, 任芷宇, 蒲小萍. 员工真诚对同事关系的双刃剑效应:共事时间的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 529-548. |
[7] | 王铭, 孙启武, 柳静, 任志洪, 江光荣. PTSD易感性人格特质、工作记忆能力和创伤期间认知加工对模拟创伤闪回的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(2): 168-181. |
[8] | 刘怡婷, 范洁琼, 陈斌斌. 婚姻质量对父母协同养育的影响:基于共同命运模型的跨层中介分析[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(10): 1216-1233. |
[9] | 张妮, 刘文, 刘方, 郭鑫. 8~12岁儿童抑郁与认知重评的关系:悲伤面孔注意偏向的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(1): 25-39. |
[10] | 佐斌, 刘晨, 温芳芳, 谭潇, 谢志杰. 性别化名字对个体印象评价及人际交往的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(4): 387-399. |
[11] | 佐斌, 戴月娥, 温芳芳, 高佳, 谢志杰, 何赛飞. 人如其食:食物性别刻板印象及对人物评价的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(3): 259-272. |
[12] | 柯晓晓, 齐惠紫, 梁家辉, 金欣园, 高婕, 张明霞, 汪亚珉. 中国人整体性思维特征的情境评估法及其应用[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(12): 1299-1309. |
[13] | 卢海陵, 杨洋, 王永丽, 张昕, 谭玲. “激将法”会激发还是打击员工?感知能力不被领导信任的“双刃剑”效应[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(12): 1376-1392. |
[14] | 孙琳, 段涛, 刘伟, 陈宁. 特质正念对初中生学业情绪预测偏差的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(11): 1203-1214. |
[15] | 李树文, 罗瑾琏. 领导-下属情绪评价能力一致与员工建言:内部人身份感知与性别相似性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1121-1131. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||