不对称社会困境中的决策 : 行为的双重模式

Transcription

1 2015, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1 10 Advances in Psychological Science DOI: /SP.J 决策心理学专栏 (Special Column for Decision-making Psychology) * 不对称社会困境中的决策 : 行为的双重模式 刘长江 1,2 郝 芳 1 ( 1, ) ( 2, ) 摘 要 社会困境中的互依结构与不对称关系共同造就了两种不同且稳定的社会知觉模式 与此相应, 个体 存在两种行为模式, 即 (1) 关注于力量与分层的垂直模式 ; (2) 关注于道德与和谐的水平模式 在不对称社会困 境中, 那些在社会中占据强势位置的个体更可能采取垂直取向的行为模式, 从而做出背叛选择, 而那些占据 弱势位置的个体则更可能采取水平取向的行为模式, 从而做出合作选择 然而, 个体动机会改变这种不对称社 会结构与社会困境中决策之间的关系 这一观点很好地解释了相关研究, 但仍需要深入发展和检验 关键词 ; ; ; ; 分类号 B849:C91 (social hierarchy) (Leavitt, 2005; Rieskamp & Todd, 2006),,, (Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013),, : * :, chjliu@njnu.edu.cn 1 不对称社会困境 (, Zitek & Tiedens, 2012), (Janssen & Rollins, 2012; Rieskamp & Todd, 2006; Wang, He, Wang, Shi, & Li, 2010) (asymmetric social dilemmas) (,,, 2007),,, (Messick & Brewer, 1983),, ( ), ;, 1

2 2 23,, (Weber, Kopelman, & Messick, 2004), ( ), ( ) ( ), ( ) ( ),, ;,,, (Van Dijk & Wilke, 1995, 2000), Nikiforakis, Normann Wallace (2010) ( 1 ),,,, Stouten, De Cremer Van Dijk (2009),, (Wilke, De Boer, & Liebrand, 1986),,, (Samuelson & Messick, 1986),,, Han, Li Shi (2009),,, ( ), (Li, Li, Decety, & Lee, 2013) (6 ), (9 ),, 9 (Rao et al., 2011), (, ),,, (Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel, & Bazerman, 1996) (Eek, Biel, & Gärling, 2001) (Van Dijk & Wilke, 2000), 2 社会困境中决策的双重模式 : 垂直取向与水平取向 2.1 社会知觉,,,,, ( ),,,, (Social Interdependence Theory) (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996) (Appropriateness Framework) (Weber et al., 2004) - (Goal-Expectation Theory) (Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977),

3 1 : 3,, Halevy Katz (2013),,, (conflict templates), (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008),,, (Abele & Wojciszke, 2013), ( ),,, Cuddy (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), (warmth) (competence) Wojciszke (2005),, (morality) (competence) Montoya Horton (2014), (, willingness to benefit) (, capacity) Abele Wojciszke (2013), (social relatedness) (individual strivings),, ;,,,,, (evaluative) (dynamic) (Liebrand, Jansen, Rijken, & Suhre, 1986),, ( ) ( ), (evaluation) (potency),,,,, ;,, (Van Lange & Liebrand, 1989) 2.2 决策模式,, (vertical orientation),,,, (horizontal orientation),,, 1 1

4 4 23, (Messick & Brewer, 1983),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;,,,,, (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Zitek & Tiedens, 2012),, (Rieskamp & Todd, 2006),,, (Kimbrough, Sheremeta, & Shields, 2014), (Avrahami, Kareev, Todd, & Silverman, 2014),,,,,,, ( ), ( ), 1,,,,,,,, (,, 2014),, (Liebrand et al., 1986),,,, (social identity) (self-categorization) (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1985),,,,,,, 2,, 1

5 1 : 5 2 ( ) 1, Elster (1989),,,,,, 3 社会价值,,, ;, (,, 2011), (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978),,, 1,, (Beggan, Messick, & Allison, 1988),,, ; (Van Lange, 1999), 9, ( 9 6 ), ( ) ( ) 1,,,, ( ) ( ), ;, 2,, ( ) 2 1, 2,, ( ) ( ) ( ),

6 6 23 ;, 1, 2,,,,,,,,,,, 4 社会认同,, ( ), (, 1) (, 2), (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005),, ;,,, ;,,, (Wit, 2000),, ( ) ;, (, 2008, 2) 6 Wit Kerr (2002) (nested social dilemmas), ( ), ( ) ( 3 ),, 6 ( ), ( ) ( ), ( 3 3, 2 2 ), 3

7 1 : 7, ( ), (Barreto & Ellemers, 2003),,,,,,,,, ( ),,,,,,,, 5 小结与展望,,,,, ( ) (Wang et al., 2010;,,,, 2013),,,, ( ), ( ), ( ), ; ( ),,, ( ), (criticality),, ( ),, (De Cremer, 2007),,, (De Cremer, 2007),,,,, (Liu & Li, 2009),,,,, (strong

8 8 23 situation),,,,,, (De Kwaadsteniet, Van Dijk, Wit, De Cremer, 2006),,,, (weak situation),, (Liu & Hao, 2011),,,,, (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005),,,,,, ( ) (Abele, Stasser, & Chartier, 2010),,, ( ),,, ( ) (prototypicality, ),,,, ( ) 致谢 : 感谢决策心理学专栏提供机会, 使得我们审视我们多年的研究, 并发展我们的理论观点 感谢中国科学院心理研究所李纾研究员对前期研究的支持 ; 感谢外审专家对本文提出批判性以及建设性意见 ; 感谢云南大学李耀堂教授和中国科学院昆明动物研究所王瑞武研究员提供资料和资讯 参考文献刘长江. (2008). 社会困境中的行为决策 : 社会身份与地位的影响 ( 博士学位论文 ). 中国科学院, 北京. 刘长江, 郝芳. (2011). 不对称社会困境中社会价值取向对合作的影响. 心理学报, 43, 刘长江, 郝芳. (2014). 社会困境问题的理论架构与实验研究. 心理科学进展, 22, 刘长江, 李岩梅, 李纾. (2007). 实验社会心理学中的社会困境. 心理科学进展, 15, 谢文澜, 汪祚军, 王霏, 张林. (2013). 合作行为的产生机制及影响因素 基于进化心理学视角下的探讨. 心理科学进展, 21, Abele, S., Stasser, G., & Chartier, C. (2010). Conflict and coordination in the provision of public goods: A conceptual analysis of continuous and step-level games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2013).The big two in social

9 1 : 9 judgment and behavior. Social Psychology, 44, Avrahami, J., Kareev, Y., Todd, P. M., & Silverman, B. (2014). Allocation of resources in asymmetric competitions: How do the weak maintain a chance of winning? Journal of Economic Psychology, 42, Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2003). The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, Beggan, J. K., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1988). Social values and egocentric bias: Two tests of the might over morality hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, De Cremer, D. (2007). When the rich contribute more in public good dilemmas: The role of provision point level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Van Dijk, E., Wit, A., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Social dilemmas as strong versus weak situations: Social value orientations and tacit coordination under resource size uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, Eek, D., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (2001). Cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas when equality is perceived as unfair. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, Han, R., Li, S., & Shi, J.-N. (2009). The territorial prior-residence effect and children's behavior in social dilemmas. Environment and Behavior, 41, Halevy, N., & Katz, J. J. (2013). Conflict templates thinking through interdependence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, Janssen, M. A., & Rollins, N. D. (2012). Evolution of cooperation in asymmetric commons dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Kimbrough, E. O., Sheremeta, R. M., & Shields, T. W. (2014). When parity promotes peace: Resolving conflict between asymmetric agents. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 99, Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Li, Y., Li, H., Decety, J., & Lee, K. (2013). Experiencing a natural disaster alters children s altruistic giving. Psychological Science, 24, Liebrand, W. B. G., Jansen, R. W. T. L., Rijken, V. M., & Suhre, C. J. M. (1986). Might over morality: Social values and the perception of other players in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, Liu, C.-J., & Li, S. (2009). Contextualized self: When the self runs into social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 44, Liu, C.-J., & Hao, F. (2011). An application of a dualprocess approach to decision making in social dilemmas. American Journal of Psychology, 124, Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2014). A two-dimensional model for the study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, Nikiforakis, N., Normann, H. T., & Wallace, B. (2010). Asymmetric enforcement of cooperation in a social dilemma. Southern Economic Journal, 76, Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, Rao, L. L., Han, R., Ren, X. P., Bai, X. W., Zheng, R., Liu, H., Li, S. (2011). Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: The effects of the Wenchuan earthquake. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, Rieskamp, J., & Todd, P. M. (2006). The evolution of cooperative strategies for asymmetric social interactions. Theory and Decision, 60, Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp ). New York: Guilford. Samuelson, C. D., & Messick, D. M. (1986). Inequities in access to and use of shared resources in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2009). When being disadvantaged grows into vengeance: The effects of asymmetry of interest and social rejection in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the selfconcept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In

10 10 23 E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (2000). Decision-induced focusing in social dilemmas: Give-some, keep-some, take-some, and leave-some dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 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, Van Lange, P. A. M., & Liebrand, W. B. (1989). On perceiving morality and potency: Social values and the effects of person perception in a give-some dilemma. European Journal of Personality, 3, Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. (1996). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, Wang, R. W., He, J. Z., Wang, Y. Q., Shi, L., & Li, Y. T. (2010). Asymmetric interaction will facilitate the evolution of cooperation. Science China Life Sciences, 53, Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, Wilke, H. A. M., De Boer, K. L., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1986). Standards of justice and quality of power in a social dilemma situation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, Wit, A. P. (2000). Subgroup status and cooperation in nested social dilemmas (Internal report). Leiden, the Netherlands: Leiden University. Wit, A. P., & Kerr, N. L. (2002). Me versus just us versus us all categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, Decision Making in Asymmetric Social Dilemmas: A Dual Mode of Action LIU Changjiang 1,2 ; HAO Fang 1 ( 1 School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing , China) ( 2 Research Institute of Moral Education, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing , China) Abstract: Interdependence structure and asymmetric relation in social dilemmas come together to cultivate two different but stable modes of social perception. Consequently, individuals behave in two different ways: a vertical mode of action oriented to strength and hierarchy, and a horizontal mode oriented to morality and harmony. When facing asymmetric social dilemmas, those who are relatively strong in their social position are inclined to behave in a vertical mode and thus decide to defect; while those who are relatively weak tend to act in a horizontal mode and thus decide to cooperate. However, individuals motives strongly moderate the relationship between asymmetric social structure and decision making in social dilemmas. This view explains well the experimental research done by the authors; however it still needs further development and additional tests. Key words: decision-making; social dilemmas; asymmetry; mode of action; cooperation 通讯作者简介 :,,, American Journal of Psychology International Journal of Psychology