跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效：亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00435

心理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (3): 435-454.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00435

• "中国人应对历史危机的心理特征与行为表现"专栏 • 上一篇下一篇

跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效：亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究

沈丝楚¹^,², 希喜格³, 丁阳²^,⁴, 马家涛⁵, 杨舒雯²^,⁴, 匡仪²^,⁴, 许明星²^,⁶, 李纾²^,⁴^,⁵()

¹福建师范大学心理学院, 福州 350108
²中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室, 北京 100101
³蒙古国立大学教育与心理学系, 乌兰巴托, 蒙古国
⁴中国科学院大学心理系, 北京 100049
⁵浙江大学心理与行为科学系, 杭州 310007
⁶福建工程学院交通运输学院, 福州 350118
⁷阿德莱德大学, 阿德莱德 5005, 澳大利亚

收稿日期:2021-04-05 发布日期:2022-12-22 出版日期:2023-03-25
通讯作者: 李纾 E-mail:lishu@psych.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(71761167001);国家社会科学基金重大项目(19ZDA358);国家社会科学基金重大项目(18ZDA332);福建省社会科学规划一般项目(FJ2020B057)

Changes in the intertemporal choice of people in or close to Chinese culture can predict their self-rated surviving achievement in the fight against COVID-19: A cross-national study in 18 Asian, African, European, American, and Oceanian countries

SHEN Si-Chu¹^,², Khishignyam BAZARVAANI³, DING Yang²^,⁴, MA Jia-Tao⁵, YANG Shu-Wen²^,⁴, UANG Yi²^,⁴, XU Ming-Xing²^,⁶, John E. TAPLIN⁷, LI Shu²^,⁴^,⁵()

¹Department of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China
²CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101, China
³School of Arts and Sciences, Division of Social Sciences, Department of Education and Psychology, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
⁴Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
⁵Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310007, China
⁶School of Transportation, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China
⁷The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia

Received:2021-04-05 Online:2022-12-22 Published:2023-03-25
Contact: LI Shu E-mail:lishu@psych.ac.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

跨期选择是对不同时间点的得失的权衡与选择。伊索寓言《蚂蚁和蚱蜢》假借群居型昆虫的跨期选择偏爱暗喻投资未来的慢策略比只顾眼前的快策略更利于生存。用跨期选择领域通用的语言解读这一寓言便是：选择大而迟选项的蚂蚁比选择小而早选项的蚱蜢更可能扛过严冬而生存下来。为了探索何种跨期选择策略更有助于我们扛过疫情, 本研究调查了亚非欧美大洋洲这5大洲18个国家共计26355名受测者对混合得失双结果的跨期选择偏爱, 测量了人们平时和疫时跨期选择偏爱的变易程度(2类变易的程度指标), 以及人们自评的扛疫成效。跨文化比较结果的主要发现是：不同通货的选择变易程度(指标1)和不同时期的选择变易程度(指标2)能联合预测中国/新加坡文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效; 不同时期的选择变易程度(指标2)也可以单独预测印度/马来西亚/菲律宾/尼日利亚文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效; 这2类选择偏爱变易的程度指标不能预测其他文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效(或者预测方向和假设相反)。基于易经“穷则变, 变则通”的要旨和跨国比较的发现, 我们认为：面临历史危机时善于变通的特长抑或成就了中华民族特有的竞争优势; 在应对危机时, 与中国文化距离越相近的国家或民族抑或也能越受益于类似的竞争优势。

关键词: 混合得失双结果的跨期选择, 跨期选择偏爱的变易, 自评扛疫成效, 变通, 多国跨国比较

Abstract:

Humans are facing an unprecedented historical crisis and challenge. To identify the strategies that we can use to cope with historical crisis and challenge, we should investigate two well-studied strategies: “slow strategy, ” which is essentially an investment in the future, and “fast strategy” or “live fast, die young.” According to “The Ant and the Grasshopper, ” Aesop’s fable, which is under the pretext of intertemporal choice of social insects, the “slow” rather than the “fast” strategy is recommended for those who want to survive the environmental crisis. Intertemporal choice requires tradeoffs among outcomes whose effects occur at different times. In the commonly accepted language of intertemporal choice, the Ant, whose choice is the “larger but later” (LL) option, is more likely to survive the harsh winter than the Grasshopper, whose choice is the “smaller but sooner” (SS) option.

To determine the optimal intertemporal choice strategy that can help us to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, we included 26, 355 participants from 18 Asian, African, European, American, and Oceanian countries in the present study. We investigated the participants’ preferences in intertemporal choice with double-dated mixed outcomes, evaluated the degree of change in their intertemporal choice by differentiating the common currency in peacetime and epidemic time (i.e., two kinds of change indicators used for differentiating currencies and stages, respectively). We then asked them to rate their self-rated surviving achievement in the fight against COVID-19. Considering that individuals’ surviving achievements were affected by individual- and religious-level factors, we analyzed all data by using multilevel linear analysis to reflect the data’s hierarchical structure. After considering individual differences in personal factors and religious factors, we constructed two-level models to explore the effects of the change in intertemporal choice on self-rated surviving achievement, and measured the moderating role of cultural orientation in terms of Hofstede’s six culture dimensions.

The findings of the cross-national survey revealed that Change Indicator 1 (∆ currency) and Change Indicator 2 (∆ stage) of Chinese/Singaporeans could jointly predict their self-rated surviving achievement. Meanwhile, only Change Indicator 2 (∆ stage) alone could predict the self-rated surviving achievement of people in the cultural circle that included the India, Malaysia, Philippines, and Nigeria. Neither Change Indicator 1 (∆ currency) nor Change Indicator 2 (∆ stage) of the people in other cultures could significantly predict their self-rated surviving achievement.

On the basis of the gist of The Book of Change and the resulting findings, we suggested that 1) how you differentially (flexibly) made an intertemporal choice in peacetime and epidemic time would reflect the extent to which you would survive the war against COVID-19. In addition, 2) the mindset of change might shape the competitive advantage of a nation, such as China, in response to the historical crisis. The closer the cultural distance of a country or nation from China, the greater the possibility of benefitting from a similar competitive advantage. It is our hope that our findings would contribute to answer the question of what are “Psychological Characteristics and Behaviors of Chinese People in Response to Historical Crisis?”

Key words: intertemporal choice with double-dated mixed outcomes, change in intertemporal choice, self-rated surviving achievement, biàn tōng (change and through), 18-country cross-national comparison

中图分类号:

B849: C91

沈丝楚, 希喜格, 丁阳, 马家涛, 杨舒雯, 匡仪, 许明星, 李纾. (2023). 跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效：亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究. 心理学报, 55(3), 435-454.

SHEN Si-Chu, Khishignyam BAZARVAANI, DING Yang, MA Jia-Tao, YANG Shu-Wen, UANG Yi, XU Ming-Xing, John E. TAPLIN, LI Shu. (2023). Changes in the intertemporal choice of people in or close to Chinese culture can predict their self-rated surviving achievement in the fight against COVID-19: A cross-national study in 18 Asian, African, European, American, and Oceanian countries. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 435-454.

图/表 15

参考文献 95

[1]	A, B. -L. -T.-J., Ren, X. Y., Guo, H. F., Liu, H. Z., Zheng, R., Liang, Z. Y.,... Li, S. (2017). A comparative study of the green conscious in Uyghur and Han culture. Psychology: Techniques and Application, 5(10), 605-610.
	[ 阿不来提江, 任晓媛, 郭慧芳, 刘洪志, 郑蕊, 梁竹苑,... 李纾. (2017). 不同文化底蕴中绿色意识的比较——以维汉民族为例. 心理技术与应用, 5(10), 605-610.]
[2]	Adler N., & Stewart J. (2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. San Francisco: MacArthur Research Network on SES & Health.
[3]	Bateson M., & Kacelnik A. (1996). Rate currencies and the foraging starling: The fallacy of the averages revisited. Behavioral Ecology, 7(3), 341-352. doi: 10.1093/beheco/7.3.341 URL
[4]	Bryk A. S., & Raudenbush S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (pp.15-145). Newbury Park CA: Sage.
[5]	Bullock H. E., & Limbert W. M. (2003). Scaling the socioeconomic ladder: Low‐income women's perceptions of class status and opportunity. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 693-709. doi: 10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00085.x URL
[6]	Campbell A. (1976). Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist, 31(2), 117-124. pmid: 1267244
[7]	Cannito L., Anzani S., Bortolotti A., Palumbo R., Ceccato I., Di Crosta A., … Palumbo R.. (2021). Temporal discounting of money and face masks during the covid-19 pandemic: The role of hoarding level. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(642102).
[8]	Cardin M. A., Ranjbar‐Bourani M., & de Neufville R. (2015). Improving the lifecycle performance of engineering projects with flexible strategies: Example of on‐shore LNG production design. Systems Engineering, 18(3), 253-268. doi: 10.1002/sys.21301 URL
[9]	Chen Y. N., Yao S. Q., & Xia L. W. (2014). Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Subjective Socioeconomic Status Scale in a general adult population. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 28(11), 869-874.
	[ 陈于宁, 姚树桥, 夏良伟. (2014). 主观社会经济地位量表中文版测评成人样本的效度和信度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 28(11), 869-874.]
[10]	Chen X.-P. & Li S. (2005). Cross-National differences in cooperative decision making in mixed-motive business contexts: The mediating effect of vertical and horizontal individualism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 622-636. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400169 URL
[11]	Cheng C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings: A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 814-833. pmid: 11374752
[12]	Cheng C. (2009). Dialectical thinking and coping flexibility: A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality, 77(2), 471-493. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x pmid: 19220723
[13]	Du W., Green L., & Myerson J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Record, 52, 479-492. doi: 10.1007/BF03395199 URL
[14]	Du X.-L., Liu S.-H., Xu J.-H., Rao L.-L., Jiang C.-M., & Li S. (2013). When uncertainty meets life: The effect of animacy on probability expression. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 425-438. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005283 URL
[15]	Edwards J. R., & Parry M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577-1613. doi: 10.2307/256822 URL
[16]	Farooq O., Rupp D. E., & Farooq M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 954-985. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0849 URL
[17]	Feng Y. L., & Tu Y. G. (2013). A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Peking University Press.
	[ 冯友兰, 涂又光. (2013). 中国哲学简史. 北京大学出版社.]
[18]	Finch E. (1992). Environmental assessment of construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 10(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1080/01446199200000002 URL
[19]	Franzini L., & Fernandez-Esquer M. E. (2006). The association of subjective social status and health in low-income Mexican-origin individuals in Texas. Social Science & Medicine, 63(3), 788-804. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.009 URL
[20]	Gan Y., Wang Y., Meng R., Wen M., Zhou G., Lu Y., & Miao M. (2015). Temporal discounting mechanisms of future-oriented coping: Evidence from delay discounting and task prioritization paradigms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 529-541. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1869 URL
[21]	Green L., Fry A. F., & Myerson J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5, 33-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00610.x URL
[22]	Green L., Myerson J., Holt D. D., Slevin J. R., & Estle S. J. (2004). Discounting of delayed food rewards in pigeons and rats: Is there a magnitude effect? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 39-50. pmid: 15113132
[23]	Griskevicius V., Ackerman J. M., Cantu S. M., Delton A. W., Robertson T. E., Simpson J. A., … Tybur J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24, 197-205. doi: 10.1177/0956797612451471 pmid: 23302295
[24]	Hendrickx L., Poortinga W., & van der Kooij R. (2001). Temporal factors in resource dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 108(2), 137-154. pmid: 11569759
[25]	Hofstede G., & Bond M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433. doi: 10.1177/0022002184015004003 URL
[26]	Hofstede G., & Bond M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
[27]	Hofstede G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed). Sage Publications.
[28]	Hofstede G. H., Hofstede G. J., & Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[29]	Huang T. T., Liu L. Q., Wang D. H., & Zhang W. H. (2016). Socioeconomic status and sociometric status: Age differences on the effects of social comparison on subjective well-being. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(9), 1163-1174. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01163 URL
	[ 黄婷婷, 刘莉倩, 王大华, 张文海. (2016). 经济地位和计量地位: 社会地位比较对主观幸福感的影响及其年龄差异. 心理学报, 48(9), 1163-1174.]
[30]	Huynh T. L. D. (2020). Does culture matter social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic?. Safety Science, 130, 104872. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104872 URL
[31]	Ji L. J., Khei M., Yap S., Wang X., Zhang Z., & Hou Y. (2020). Cultural differences in the construal of suffering and the covid-19 pandemic. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 1039-1047. doi: 10.1177/1948550620958807 URL
[32]	Ji L. J., Nisbett R. E., & Su.Y. (2001). Culture, change and prediction. Psychological Science, 12, 450-456. pmid: 11760130
[33]	Ji L. J., Zhang Z., & Guo T. (2008). To buy or to sell: Cultural differences in stock market decisions based on price trends. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(4), 399-413. doi: 10.1002/bdm.595 URL
[34]	Jiang C. M., Liu H. Z., Cai X. H., & Li S. (2016). A process test of priority models of intertemporal choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(1), 59-72. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00059 URL
	[ 江程铭, 刘洪志, 蔡晓红, 李纾. (2016). 跨期选择单维占优模型的过程检验. 心理学报. 48(1), 59-72.]
[35]	Jiang Y. P., Jiang C. M., Hu T. Y., & Sun H. Y. (2022). Effects of emotion on intertemporal decision-making: Explanation from the single dimension priority model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(2), 122-140. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00122 URL
	[ 蒋元萍, 江程铭, 胡天翊, 孙红月. (2022). 情绪对跨期决策的影响:来自单维占优模型的解释. 心理学报, 54(2), 122-140.]
[36]	Jung C. G. (1968). Foreword. In C. F. E. T.Baynes & R. G. T.Wilhelm (Eds.), The I Ching or book of changes (3rd ed., pp. xxi-xxxix). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
[37]	Kim B., Sung Y. S., & McClure S. M. (2012). The neural basis of cultural differences in delay discounting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 650-656. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0292 URL
[38]	Kirby K. N., Petry N. M., & Bickel W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 128(1), 78-87. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.78 URL
[39]	Li J. Z., Li S., & Liu H. (2011). How has the Wenchuan earthquake influenced people's intertemporal choices? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(11), 2739-2752. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00847.x URL
[40]	Li S. (2019). Choose SS option or LL option? problems in intertemporal choice. Management Insights, 18, 80-82.
	[ 李纾. (2019). 是选“小而近” (SS)还是选“大而久” (LL)? 跨期决策的难题. 管理视野, 18, 80-82.]
[41]	Li S. (2021). Dual-factor theory: Personal factors help you climb the high branch; organizational factors help you get out of trouble. Management Insights, 25, 73-75.
	[ 李纾. (2021). 双因素理论:个人因素助你登上高枝; 组织因素助你脱离苦海. 管理视野, 25, 73-75.]
[42]	Li S., Bi Y. L., & Rao L. L. (2011). Every Science/Nature potter praises his own pot—Can we believe what he says based on his mother tongue?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 125-130. doi: 10.1177/0022022110383425 URL
[43]	Li S., Bi Y.-L., & Zhang Y. (2009). Asian risk-seeking and overconfidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2706-2736. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00545.x URL
[44]	Li S., Chen W. W., & Yu Y. (2006). The reason for Asian overconfidence. The Journal of Psychology, 140(6), 615-618. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.140.6.615-618 URL
[45]	Li S., & Fang Y. (2004). Respondents in Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese) are more risk-seeking and more overconfident than respondents in other cultures (e.g., in United States) but the reciprocal predictions are in total opposition:How and why? Journal of Cognition and Culture. 4(2), 263-292.
[46]	Li S. & Taplin J. E. (2001). A test of independence axiom in diagnosis context that offers common symptoms. Psychologia, 44(3), 188-196. doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2001.188 URL
[47]	Li S., & Taplin J. E. (2002). Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner’s dilemma games. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44, 25-46.
[48]	Li S., Triandis H. C., & Yu Y. (2006). Cultural orientation and corruption. Ethics & Behavior, 16(3), 199-215.
[49]	Li S., Wang Z. J., Rao L. L., & Li Y. M. (2010). Is there a violation of Savage’s sure-thing principle in the prisoner’s dilemma game?. Adaptive Behavior, 18(3-4), 377-385. doi: 10.1177/1059712310366040 URL
[50]	Li S., Xu J., & Ye X. (2011). Communication mode preference paradox and its derivate: Communication performance assessment paradox. Management Review. 23(9), 102-108.
	[ 李纾, 许洁虹, 叶先宝. (2011). 中文表达者的“沟通模式偏爱悖论”与“下情上达评价悖论”. 管理评论, 23(9), 102-108.]
[51]	Liang Z. Y., & Liu H. (2011). Exploring the nature of intertemporal choice. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(7), 959-966.
	[ 梁竹苑, 刘欢. (2011). 跨期选择的性质探索. 心理科学进展, 19(7), 959-966.]
[52]	Lin W. F., Huang J. L., & Lin Y. Z. (2015). A linguistic analysis of the impact of Zhong Yong thinking on emotion regulation. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 44, 119-150.
	[ 林瑋芳, 黃金蘭, 林以正. (2015). 中庸與轉念: 以字詞分析體現中庸思維之情緒調節動態歷程. 本土心理學研究, 44, 119-150.]
[53]	Lin Y. T. (1993). Original library of famous Chinese modern prose masters: You Bu Wei Zhai anthology. China Federation of Literary and Art Circles Publishing Corporation.
	[ 林语堂. (1993). 中国现代散文名家名作原版库:有不为斋文集. 中国文联出版公司. ]
[54]	Liu C. C., Jia L. D., Li Y. X., Liu D. P., & Yang Y. Y. (2016). The mechanism of openness to experience’s effect on cross-cultural management effectiveness. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(10), 1326-1337. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01326 URL
	[ 刘畅唱, 贾良定, 李珏兴, 刘德鹏, 杨椅伊. (2016). 经验开放性对跨文化管理有效性的作用机制. 心理学报, 48(10), 1326-1337.]
[55]	Liu H. Zhi., Jiang C. M., Rao L. L., & Li S. (2015). Discounting or priority: Which rule dominates the intertemporal choice process?. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 522-532. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00522 URL
	[ 刘洪志, 江程铭, 饶俪琳, 李纾. (2015). “时间折扣”还是“单维占优”?——跨期决策的心理机制. 心理学报. 47(4), 522-532. ]
[56]	Loewenstein G., & Elster J. (Eds.). (1992). Choice over time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[57]	Loewenstein G., & Prelec D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. doi: 10.2307/2118482 URL
[58]	Lu J. G., Jin P., & English A. S. (2021). Collectivism predicts mask use during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(23), 1-8.
[59]	Lyons B., & Wang C. J. (2001). Economic analysis of environmental policy: Concerns regarding the use and role of the social discount rate. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 3(2), 53-63. doi: 10.1504/IER.2001.053883 URL
[60]	McClure S. M., Laibson D. I., Loewenstein G. F., & Cohen J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503-507. doi: 10.1126/science.1100907 pmid: 15486304
[61]	Miyakawa M., Magnusson Hanson L. L., Theorell T., & Westerlund H. (2012). Subjective social status: Its determinants and association with health in the Swedish working population (the SLOSH study). The European Journal of Public Health, 22(4), 593-597. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr064 URL
[62]	Nisbett R. E., Peng K., Choi I., & Norenzayan A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 pmid: 11381831
[63]	Ostrove J. M., Adler N. E., Kuppermann M., & Washington A. E. (2000). Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 613-618. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.613 pmid: 11129365
[64]	Payne K. (2017). The broken ladder: How inequality affects the way we think, live, and die. Penguin.
[65]	Rao L. L., & Li S. (2011). New paradoxes in intertemporal choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(2), 122-129. doi: 10.1017/S193029750000406X URL
[66]	Read D. (2004). Intertemporal choice. In D. J.Koehler & N.Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 424-443). Blackwell Publishing.
[67]	Ren T. H., Hu Z. H., Sun H. Y., Liu Y., & Li S. (2015). Making a decision vs. sticking to a decision: A comparison of intertemporal choice and delay of gratification. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(2), 303-315. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00303 URL
	[ 任天虹, 胡志善, 孙红月, 刘扬, 李纾. (2015). 选择与坚持: 跨期选择与延迟满足之比较. 心理科学进展, 23(2), 303-315.]
[68]	Shanock L. R., Baran B. E., Gentry W. A., Pattison S. C., & Heggestad E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4 URL
[69]	Shen S. C., Huang Y. N., Jiang C. M., & Li S. (2019). Can asymmetric subjective opportunity cost effect explain impatience in intertemporal choice? a replication study. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 214-222. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500003442 URL
[70]	Sun H. L., Li A. M., Shen S. C., Xiong G. X., Rao L. L., Zheng R.,... Li S. (2020). Early departure, early revival: A ''free from care'' account of negative temporal discounting. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 103-116. doi: 10.5709/acp-0289-0 URL
[71]	Sun H. Y., & Jiang C. M. (2016). Is intertemporal choice alternative-based or attribute-based?. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(3), 431-437. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00431 URL
	[ 孙红月, 江程铭. (2016). 跨期决策是基于选项还是基于维度?. 心理科学进展, 24(3), 431-437.]
[72]	Sun Q. R. (2014). In YangZ. F., & WeiQ. W. (Eds), Chinese social psychological review (pp. 108-130). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
	[ 孙蒨如. (2014). 阴阳思维与极端判断:阴阳思维动态本质的初探. 见杨中芳, 韦庆旺(主编), 中国社会心理学评论(pp. 108-130). 北京: 社会科学文献出版社. ]
[73]	Tang H., Zhou K., Zhao C. X., & Li S. (2014). Suffering a loss is a blessing: Is it real gold or fool’s gold? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(10), 1549-1563. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01549 URL
	[ 唐辉, 周坤, 赵翠霞, 李纾. (2014). 吃亏是福:择“值”选项而获真利. 心理学报, 46(10), 1549-1563.]
[74]	Tang J. (2005). Socrates’ choices and legal belief——basic analysis of the dilemma and way-out of the legal popularization education in China. Justice of China, 11, 78-79.
	[ 唐菁. (2005). 苏格拉底的选择与法律的信仰——浅析中国普法教育的困境与出路. 中国司法, 11, 78-79. ]
[75]	Tang Y. H., & Gu J. L. (2017). Influence of cultural distance on the internationalization manuscript sources of top English scientific journals in China: Based on the empirical study of the most internationally influential English scientific journals in Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 28(9), 865-871. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201706200494
	[ 唐银辉, 顾金亮. (2017). 文化距离对我国顶尖英文科技期刊稿源国际化的影响研究——基于中科院最具国际影响力英文科技期刊的实证分析. 中国科技期刊研究, 28(9), 865-871.] doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201706200494
[76]	Tversky A., & Shafir E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3(5), 305-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x URL
[77]	Walumbwa F. O., & Lawler J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1083-1101. doi: 10.1080/0958519032000114219 URL
[78]	Wang Y., Du X.-L., Rao L.-L., & Li S. (2014). Probability expression for changeable and changeless uncertainties: An implicit test. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1313. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01313 pmid: 25431566
[79]	Wang Y., Wei Z. H., Shen S. C., Wu B., Cai X. H., Guo H.,... Li S. (2015). The response of Chinese scholars to the question of “how did cooperative behavior evolve?”. Chinese Science Bulletin, 61(1), 20-33.
	[ 王赟, 魏子晗, 沈丝楚, 吴斌, 蔡晓红, 郭慧芳, … 李纾. (2016). 世纪科学之问“合作行为是如何进化的”——中国学者的回应. 科学通报. 61(1), 20-33. ]
[80]	Weber E. U., & Hsee C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205-1217. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205 URL
[81]	Wen R. M. (Ed). (2020). Compulsory education textbook · Chinese (Volume 2 of Grade 6) (p. 92). Beijing: People’s Education Press.
	[ 温儒敏. (主编). (2020). 义务教育教科书·语文(六年级下册) (p. 92). 北京: 人民教育出版社. ]
[82]	Xinhua News Agency. (2020, May 23). Xinhua review: So long as green hills remain, assure success for the future.
	[ 新华社客户端. (2020, May 23). 新华时评:留得青山, 赢得未来. ]
[83]	Xu J.-H., Ye X.-B., & Li S. (2009). Communication mode preference paradox among native Chinese speakers. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(1), 125-129. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.149.1.125-130 URL
[84]	Xu L., Liang Z. Y., Wang K., Li S., & Jiang T. (2009). Neural mechanism of intertemporal choice: From discounting future gains to future losses. Brain Research, 1261, 65-74. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.12.061 pmid: 19185567
[85]	Yates J. F., Lee J.-W., & Shinotsuka H. (1996). Beliefs about overconfidence, including its cross-national variation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 138-147. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0012 URL
[86]	Yu B. W. (1993). Thoughts of ‘Changeable’ in Zhou Yi. She Ke Zong Heng, 5, 23-26.
	[ 喻博文. (1993). 论《周易》的变易思想. 社科纵横, 5, 23-26.]
[87]	Zhang K., & Li S. (2019). The column solicitation notice of “Psychological characteristics and behavior of Chinese people in coping with historical crisis. ” Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(5), 637.
	[ 张侃, 李纾. (2019). “中国人应对历史危机的心理特征与行为表现”专栏征稿启事. 心理学报, 51(5), 637.]
[88]	Zhang L., Lei L., & Guo B. L. (2003). Applied multilevel data analysis (pp. 11-27). Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.
	[ 张雷, 雷雳, 郭伯良. (2003). 多层线性模型应用 (pp.11-27). 北京: 教育科学出版社.]
[89]	Zhang Y. Y., Xu L., Rao L. L., Zhou L., Zhou Y., Jiang T.,... Liang Z. Y. (2016). Gain-loss asymmetry in neural correlates of temporal discounting: An approach-avoidance motivation perspective. Scientific Reports, 6, 31902. doi: 10.1038/srep31902 URL
[90]	Zhang Z. X. (2010). The contextualization and multilevel issues in research of organizational psychology. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(1), 10-21. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00010 URL
	[ 张志学. (2010). 组织心理学研究的情境化及多层次理论. 心理学报, 42(1), 10-21.]
[91]	Zhao C. X., Shen S. C., Li Y., Liu X., & Li S. (2021). Effects of self-other decision‐making on time‐based intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2248
[92]	Zhao C.-X., Shen S.-C., Rao L.-L., Zheng R., Liu H., & Li S. (2018). Suffering a loss is good fortune: Myth or reality?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 324-340. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2056 URL
[93]	Zheng Y., Shen S. C., Xu M. X., Rao L. L., & Li S. (2019). Worth-based choice: Giving an offered smaller pear an even greater fictional value. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13, e10.
[94]	Zhou L., Li A. M., Zhang L., Li S., & Liang Z. Y. (2019). Similarity in processes of risky choice and intertemporal choice: The case of certainty effect and immediacy effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(3), 337-352. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337 URL
	[ 周蕾, 李爱梅, 张磊, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2019). 风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较: 以确定效应和即刻效应为例. 心理学报, 51(3), 337-352.]
[95]	Zhou L. Yang Y. & Li S. (2021). Music-induced emotions influence intertemporal decision making. Cognition and Emotion, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1995331

国家	问卷语种/官方语言	施测时间段 (月/日)	女性人数 (n)	总人数 (n)	平均年龄 (岁)	社会经济地位阶梯	大学及以上文化水平的占比(%)
意大利Italy	英文/意大利语	6/14~7/15	417	916	26.87	5.92	65.7
加拿大Canada	英文/英语、克里语等	6/16~7/15	498	1022	32.10	5.87	88.5
德国Germany	英文/德语	6/18~8/20	482	1046	29.93	5.92	79.8
美国United States	英文/英语	6/24~8/12	477	978	34.18	5.46	89.3
荷兰Netherlands	英文/荷兰语	6/15~6/23	169	368	29.04	6.21	80.7
英国United Kingdom	英文/英语	6/23~7/15	612	970	35.20	5.48	80.5
瑞典Sweden	英文/瑞典语	6/12~9/09	83	275	29.90	5.45	75.5
法国France	英文/法语	6/17~9/09	145	398	27.68	5.77	88.4
西班牙Spain	英文/西班牙语	6/14~7/27	470	1047	30.86	5.71	84.9
澳大利亚Australia	英文/英语	6/01~9/13	418	877	31.94	5.90	85.9
中国China	中文/标准汉语	4/23~6/09	10074	16654	28.92	5.26	90.3
南非South Africa	英文/南非语、英语等	6/26~9/05	278	516	30.55	5.65	73.3
印度India	英文/印度语、英语等	6/25~9/06	126	326	29.02	6.17	90.2
尼日利亚Nigeria	英文/英语	6/30~8/31	86	142	29.82	5.90	90.9
新加坡Singapore	英文/英语	6/23~9/01	24	35	28.80	6.37	97.1
马来西亚Malaysia	英文/马来语	6/24~9/08	51	89	28.04	5.98	92.1
菲律宾Philippines	英文/英语、菲律宾语	6/24~9/09	97	149	29.04	5.66	85.9
蒙古Mongolia	英文/蒙古语	5/04~6/02	371	527	25.52	6.44	95.3
合计			14878	26355	29.58	5.46	87.6

国家	问卷语种/官方语言	施测时间段 (月/日)	女性人数 (n)	总人数 (n)	平均年龄 (岁)	社会经济地位阶梯	大学及以上文化水平的占比(%)
意大利Italy	英文/意大利语	6/14~7/15	417	916	26.87	5.92	65.7
加拿大Canada	英文/英语、克里语等	6/16~7/15	498	1022	32.10	5.87	88.5
德国Germany	英文/德语	6/18~8/20	482	1046	29.93	5.92	79.8
美国United States	英文/英语	6/24~8/12	477	978	34.18	5.46	89.3
荷兰Netherlands	英文/荷兰语	6/15~6/23	169	368	29.04	6.21	80.7
英国United Kingdom	英文/英语	6/23~7/15	612	970	35.20	5.48	80.5
瑞典Sweden	英文/瑞典语	6/12~9/09	83	275	29.90	5.45	75.5
法国France	英文/法语	6/17~9/09	145	398	27.68	5.77	88.4
西班牙Spain	英文/西班牙语	6/14~7/27	470	1047	30.86	5.71	84.9
澳大利亚Australia	英文/英语	6/01~9/13	418	877	31.94	5.90	85.9
中国China	中文/标准汉语	4/23~6/09	10074	16654	28.92	5.26	90.3
南非South Africa	英文/南非语、英语等	6/26~9/05	278	516	30.55	5.65	73.3
印度India	英文/印度语、英语等	6/25~9/06	126	326	29.02	6.17	90.2
尼日利亚Nigeria	英文/英语	6/30~8/31	86	142	29.82	5.90	90.9
新加坡Singapore	英文/英语	6/23~9/01	24	35	28.80	6.37	97.1
马来西亚Malaysia	英文/马来语	6/24~9/08	51	89	28.04	5.98	92.1
菲律宾Philippines	英文/英语、菲律宾语	6/24~9/09	97	149	29.04	5.66	85.9
蒙古Mongolia	英文/蒙古语	5/04~6/02	371	527	25.52	6.44	95.3
合计			14878	26355	29.58	5.46	87.6

变量	M ± SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
个人层次
性别(女 = 1, 男 = 0)		—
年龄	29.58 ± 9.71	−0.089^**	—
受教育程度	2.99 ± 0.56	0.040^**	0.052^**	—
即时生活满意度	3.89 ± 1.13	0.008	0.074^**	0.091^**	—
社会经济地位阶梯	5.46 ± 1.71	−0.025^**	0.102^**	0.159^**	0.337^**	—
不同通货的选择变易程度	0.20 ± 3.15	0.022^*	−0.026^**	0.026^**	0.015^*	0.006	—
不同时期的选择变易程度	0.02 ± 3.88	−0.005	−0.002	0.003	−0.001	0.002	0.004	—
水下阶梯(自评扛疫成效)	6.98 ± 2.03	−0.010	0.031^**	0.075^**	0.345^**	0.347^**	0.018^**	0.006	—
国家层次
人均GDP	33646.11 ± 25002.74	—
每万人新冠肺炎确诊数	27.79 ± 25.02	0.598^**	—
国家人口数^a	3.72 ±0.72	−0.297	−0.305	—
人口密度^a	1.97 ±0.88	0.038	0.192	0.166	—
国土面积^b	1240.62±1052.46	−0.042	−0.184	0.486^*	−0.579^*	—
6维文化距离^b	5.48 ±2.57	−0.524^**	0.207	0.310	0.626^**	−0.144	—

变量	M ± SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
个人层次
性别(女 = 1, 男 = 0)		—
年龄	29.58 ± 9.71	−0.089^**	—
受教育程度	2.99 ± 0.56	0.040^**	0.052^**	—
即时生活满意度	3.89 ± 1.13	0.008	0.074^**	0.091^**	—
社会经济地位阶梯	5.46 ± 1.71	−0.025^**	0.102^**	0.159^**	0.337^**	—
不同通货的选择变易程度	0.20 ± 3.15	0.022^*	−0.026^**	0.026^**	0.015^*	0.006	—
不同时期的选择变易程度	0.02 ± 3.88	−0.005	−0.002	0.003	−0.001	0.002	0.004	—
水下阶梯(自评扛疫成效)	6.98 ± 2.03	−0.010	0.031^**	0.075^**	0.345^**	0.347^**	0.018^**	0.006	—
国家层次
人均GDP	33646.11 ± 25002.74	—
每万人新冠肺炎确诊数	27.79 ± 25.02	0.598^**	—
国家人口数^a	3.72 ±0.72	−0.297	−0.305	—
人口密度^a	1.97 ±0.88	0.038	0.192	0.166	—
国土面积^b	1240.62±1052.46	−0.042	−0.184	0.486^*	−0.579^*	—
6维文化距离^b	5.48 ±2.57	−0.524^**	0.207	0.310	0.626^**	−0.144	—

变量	自评扛疫成效(水下阶梯)
	Model 1			Model 2
	Estimates (SE)	t	95% CIs	Estimates (SE)	t	95% CIs
截距	7.14 (0.09)	81.52^***	6.97 ~ 7.31	6.94 (0.09)	79.240^***	6.77 ~ 7.11
个体层面 (Level−1)
性别(女 = 1, 男 = 0)	−0.03 (0.02)	−1.18	−0.08 ~ 0.02	−0.03 (0.02)	−1.278	−0.08 ~ 0.02
年龄	−0.02 (0.01)	−1.47	−0.04 ~ 0.01	−0.02 (0.01)	−1.565	−0.04 ~ 0.00
受教育程度	0.02 (0.01)	1.62	−0.00 ~ 0.04	0.02 (0.01)	1.723	−0.00 ~ 0.04
即时生活满意度	0.52 (0.01)	42.23^***	0.50 ~ 0.55	0.53 (0.01)	42.086^***	0.51 ~ 0.56
社会经济地位阶梯	0.51 (0.01)	39.95^***	0.49 ~ 0.54	0.51 (0.01)	39.518^***	0.49 ~ 0.54
不同通货的选择变易程度	0.01 (0.02)	0.76	−0.02 ~ 0.05	−0.03 (0.02)	−1.121	−0.07 ~ 0.02
不同时期的选择变易程度	0.01 (0.01)	0.75	−0.01 ~ 0.03	−0.02 (0.02)	−1.222	−0.05 ~ 0.01
国家层面 (Level−2)
人均GDP				0.37 (0.07)	5.243^***	0.23 ~ 0.51
每万人新冠肺炎确诊数				−0.11 (0.06)	−1.976	−0.23~ −0.00
国家人口数^a				0.16 (0.11)	1.410	−0.06 ~ 0.38
人口密度^a				−0.36 (0.15)	−2.361^*	−0.66 ~ −0.06
国土面积^b				−0.27 (0.12)	−2.304^*	−0.51 ~ −0.04
6维文化距离^b				0.27 (0.10)	2.830^*	0.08 ~ 0.46
跨层交互作用
6维文化距离 × 不同通货的选择变易程度				0.03 (0.01)	2.242^*	0.00 ~ 0.05
6维文化距离 × 不同时期的选择变易程度				0.02 (0.01)	2.355^*	0.00 ~ 0.04
方差分解
df (level1)	26, 355			26, 355
df (level2)	18			18
组内方差(σ²)	3.28			3.26
组间方差(τ)	0.10			0.04
R²	0.17			0.18

跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效：亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究

Changes in the intertemporal choice of people in or close to Chinese culture can predict their self-rated surviving achievement in the fight against COVID-19: A cross-national study in 18 Asian, African, European, American, and Oceanian countries

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 15

参考文献 95

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

变量	文化圈1：中/新平均6维文化距离 = 19.839		文化圈2：印/尼/马/菲平均6维文化距离 = 70.431		文化圈3：法/西/德/意平均6维文化距离 = 82.495		文化圈4：美/澳/加/英/南平均6维文化距离 = 105.473		文化圈5：荷/瑞平均6维文化距离 = 109.097		蒙古国缺6维文化距离
变量	模型1	模型2	模型1	模型2	模型1	模型2	模型1	模型2	模型1	模型2	模型1	模型2
自变量
不同通货的选择变易程度	0.036^*		0.994^†		0.033		−0.053		1.440		0
不同时期的选择变易程度		0.029^†		0.010		−0.031		−0.013		−0.152^*		0.030
不同时期的选择变易程度		0.029^†		0.010		−0.031		−0.013		−0.152^*		0.030	控制变量
性别	0.059^†	0.046	−0.005	−0.012	−0.163^**	−0.161^**	−0.112^*	−0.132^*	−0.296^*	−0.318^*	0.045	0.049
年龄	0.021	0.033^†	0.040	0.024	−0.147^***	−0.152^***	−0.052^*	−0.056^*	−0.047	−0.026	0.006	0.018
受教育程度	0.029	0.029	−0.020	−0.044	0.061^**	0.069^**	−0.006	−0.005	0.045	0.050	−0.266	−0.218
生活满意度	0.583^***	0.590^***	0.434^***	0.454^***	0.425^***	0.418^***	0.455^***	0.446^***	0.355^***	0.366^***	0.329^***	0.318^***
社会经济地位阶梯	0.480^***	0.460^***	0.719^***	0.720^***	0.522^***	0.537^***	0.715^***	0.706^***	0.455^***	0.436^***	0.404^***	0.406^***
Adjusted R²	0.169	0.166	0.230	0.233	0.186	0.191	0.236	0.233	0.153	0.154	0.088	0.085

变量	文化圈1：中/新	文化圈2：印/马/菲/尼
变量	模型3	模型3
常数 (b₀)	3.143^***	2.847^***
性别(女 = 1, 男 = 0)	0.043	0.000
年龄	0.004^**	0.003
教育程度	0.040	−0.090
社会地位	0.273^***	0.419^***
生活满意度	0.521^***	0.401^***
不同通货的选择变易程度 (b₁)	0.130^***	0.374
不同时期的选择变易程度 (b₂)	0.009^*	−0.002
不同通货的选择变易程度平方 (b₃)	0.001^***	0.078
不同通货的选择变易程度×不同时期的选择变易程度 (b₄)	−0.010	−0.012
不同时期的选择变易程度平方 (b₅)	0.000	0.000
R²	0.169	0.245
ΔR²	0.003^***	0.001
Y = X 斜率 (a₁)	0.139^**	0.372
曲率 (a₂)	−0.009	0.066
Y = −X 斜率 (a₃)	0.120^**	0.375
曲率 (a₄)	0.011	0.089