价值取向与社会距离影响博弈决策的合作与冲突行为:Chicken Game的证据  

Value Orientation and Social Distance Influenced Cooperation and Aggression in Decision-making: Evidences from Chicken Game

作　　者：袁博[1] 张振[2] 沈英伦 黄亮[2] 李颖[2] 王益文[2] 

机构地区：[1]宁波大学心理学系,宁波315211 [2]天津师范大学心理与行为研究院,天津300074

出　　处：《心理科学》2014年第4期962-967,共6页Journal of Psychological Science

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(31371045);新世纪优秀人才支持计划(NCET-11-1065);教育部人文社科研究基地重大项目(12JJD190004);中青年骨干创新人才培养计划的资助

摘　　要：采用Chicken Game博弈任务,考察了不同社会价值取向个体(亲社会者与亲自我者)在面对不同社会距离的博弈对手(朋友和陌生人)时表现出的合作与冲突行为。研究结果发现:(1)社会价值取向与社会距离交互影响个体的合作与冲突行为的选择率;(2)社会价值取向影响选择策略的反应时;(3)反馈类型显著影响个体随后决策中合作与冲突行为的选择率以及反应时。上述结果表明,个体的合作或冲突行为,并非单一地受到社会价值取向的影响,更可能是受到个人因素(社会价值取向)与其他社会因素(比如,社会距离)的共同调节,并且在这一过程中个体会根据决策后反馈信息不断的调整自己的行为策略。Previous studies employing the social game tasks have demonstrated that human cooperation and aggression were affected bythe individual＇s social value orientation. However, the extent of this impact was relatively limited and unstable. According to the behav-ioral dynamics view, our behaviors are impacted by interaction of personality and social situation. Social distance is a kind of social situ-ation, and is proved to affect our social cognition and behaviors. However, it is still unclear how cooperation and aggression are modula-ted by social value orientation and social distance. In order to address this issue, we use the chicken game to explore how social value orientation and social distance interactively im-pacted our social game behaviors in the present study. Subjects with different social value orientations （prosocial vs. proself） were re-cruited, and were arranged to play the chicken game with their friend and a stranger （ lab assistants） through the networked computer. The percentage of selecting cooperation was entered into a 2 （SVO Prosocial, Proself） ~ 2 （Social distance： Friend, Stranger）ANOVA test. The results indicated that the main effect of social distance was significant, that is, participants selected more cooperationwith the friend than with the stranger. More importantly, there was a significant interaction effect between SVO and social distance. Thetest of the simple effect showed that only prosocial participants selected more cooperation with the friend than with the stranger, and thecooperative percentage was not different in proself participants. The mean response time （RT） of selecting cooperation and aggressionwere entered into a 2 （SVO： prosocial, proself） x 2 （Social distance： Friend, Stranger） 2 （Selection strategy： Cooperation, Ag-gression） ANOVA test. There was a significant interaction effect between SVO and selection strategy, indicating that the mean RT of se-lecting cooperation was longer than the mean RT of selecting aggression in p

关 键 词：社会价值取向 社会距离 合作 冲突 博弈 

分 类 号：C934[经济管理—管理学]