), 蒋松源 1 湖南师范大学认知与人类行为湖南省重点实验室
2 湖南师范大学心理系, 长沙 410081
收稿日期:2017-12-18出版日期:2019-03-15发布日期:2019-01-22通讯作者:李晓明E-mail:lixiaoming-2007@sohu.com基金资助:湖南省哲学社会科学基金资助(13YBA220)The influence of power on choice deferral
LI Xiao-Ming1,2(), JIANG Song-Yuan 1 Cognition and Human Behavior Key Laboratory of Hunan Province
2 Department of Psychology, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
Received:2017-12-18Online:2019-03-15Published:2019-01-22Contact:LI Xiao-Ming E-mail:lixiaoming-2007@sohu.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 本研究旨在考察权力对延迟选择的影响, 并探讨决策难度在其中的调节作用以及决策过程的中介作用。两个实验均先操纵个体的权力状态, 然后再请被试完成随后的延迟选择任务。结果发现, 决策难度可调节权力对延迟选择的影响, 当决策困难时, 高权力者具有更低的延迟倾向, 当决策容易时, 权力的影响消失。决策过程的加工变异性可中介权力对延迟选择的影响。结果表明, 低权力者比高权力者具有更高的延迟倾向(尤其当决策困难时), 不同权力水平者在决策过程上的差异或可部分解释此种现象。
图/表 2
表1延迟选择选项的人数(百分比)
| 决策难度 | 权力状态 | |
|---|---|---|
| 高权力 | 低权力 | |
| 高难度 | 3 (10%) | 12 (40 %) |
| 低难度 | 5 (16.67%) | 4 (13.33%) |
表1延迟选择选项的人数(百分比)
| 决策难度 | 权力状态 | |
|---|---|---|
| 高权力 | 低权力 | |
| 高难度 | 3 (10%) | 12 (40 %) |
| 低难度 | 5 (16.67%) | 4 (13.33%) |
表2不同权力启动下决策过程和决策体验各指标的差异比较(M ± SD)
| 各测量指标 | 高权力 | 低权力 | t | p | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 加工总 时间(s) | 26.20 ± 14.91 | 38.81 ± 18.41 | 3.18 | 0.002 | 0.76 |
| 加工深度 | 0.66 ± 0.21 | 0.86 ± 0.16 | 4.50 | 0.000 | 1.08 |
| 加工模式 | -0.03 ± 0.37 | 0.21 ± 0.35 | 2.88 | 0.005 | 0.69 |
| 加工变异性 | 0.15 ± 0.10 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 3.17 | 0.002 | 0.76 |
| 困难指数 | 5.06 ± 1.49 | 5.92 ± 1.44 | 2.49 | 0.015 | 0.60 |
| 愉悦度 | 5.20 ± 0.96 | 5.40 ± 1.40 | 0.72 | 0.474 | -- |
表2不同权力启动下决策过程和决策体验各指标的差异比较(M ± SD)
| 各测量指标 | 高权力 | 低权力 | t | p | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 加工总 时间(s) | 26.20 ± 14.91 | 38.81 ± 18.41 | 3.18 | 0.002 | 0.76 |
| 加工深度 | 0.66 ± 0.21 | 0.86 ± 0.16 | 4.50 | 0.000 | 1.08 |
| 加工模式 | -0.03 ± 0.37 | 0.21 ± 0.35 | 2.88 | 0.005 | 0.69 |
| 加工变异性 | 0.15 ± 0.10 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 3.17 | 0.002 | 0.76 |
| 困难指数 | 5.06 ± 1.49 | 5.92 ± 1.44 | 2.49 | 0.015 | 0.60 |
| 愉悦度 | 5.20 ± 0.96 | 5.40 ± 1.40 | 0.72 | 0.474 | -- |
参考文献 25
| [1] | 管延华, 迟毓凯, 戴金浩 . ( 2014). 权力对风险决策偏好的影响. 心理研究, 7( 4), 42-47. |
| [2] | 李晓明, 谢佳 . ( 2012). 偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响机制. 心理学报, 44( 12), 1641-1650. |
| [3] | 钟毅平, 陈潇, 颜小聪 . ( 2013). 个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响. 心理科学, 36( 2), 429- 433. |
| [4] | Anderson C.J . ( 2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129( 1), 139-167. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.139URLpmid: 12555797 |
| [5] | Dhar R. ( 1996). The effect of decision strategy on the decision to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9( 4), 265-281. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199612)9:4<265::aid-bdm231>3.0.co;2-4URL |
| [6] | Dhar R., & Nowlis S.M . ( 1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25( 4), 369-384. doi: 10.1086/209545URL |
| [7] | Fast N. J., Sivanathan N., Mayer N. D., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117( 2), 249-260. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009URL |
| [8] | Galinsky A.D., Gruenfeld D.H, & Magee J.C . ( 2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85( 3), 453-466. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453URL |
| [9] | Galinsky A. D., Magee J. C., Gruenfeld D. H., Whitson J. A., & Liljenquist K. A . ( 2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95( 6), 1450-1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633URLpmid: 19025295 |
| [10] | Hiemer J., & Abele A.E . ( 2012). High power = motivation? Low power = situation? The impact of power, power stability and power motivation on risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 53( 4), 486-490. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.008URL |
| [11] | Joshi P.D., & Fast N.J . ( 2013). Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science, 24( 4), 432-438. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457950URLpmid: 23404083 |
| [12] | Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C . ( 2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110( 2), 265-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265URL |
| [13] | Krijnen J. M. T., Zeelenberg M., & Breugelmans S. M . ( 2015). Decision importance as a cue for deferral. Judgment and Decision Making, 10( 5), 407-415. |
| [14] | Lammers J., Dubois D., Rucker D. D., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2013). Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 4), 776-779. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.008URL |
| [15] | Lange J. & Krahé B. , ( 2014). The effects of information form and domain-specific knowledge on choice deferral. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43( 3), 92-104. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2014.05.001URL |
| [16] | , Magee J.C., & Galinsky A.D . ( 2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2( 1), 351-398. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628URL |
| [17] | Magee J.C., & Smith P.K . ( 2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17( 2), 158-186. doi: 10.1177/1088868312472732URL |
| [18] | Maner J. K., Gailliot M. T Menzel A. J. & Kunstman J. W. ., ( 2012). Dispositional anxiety blocks the psychological effects of power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38( 11), 1383-1395. doi: 10.1177/0146167212453341URLpmid: 22854791 |
| [19] | Miyamoto Y., & Ji L.J . ( 2011). Power fosters context- independent, analytic cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37( 11), 1449-1458. doi: 10.1177/0146167211411485URLpmid: 21653580 |
| [20] | Preacher K.J., & Hayes A.F . ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40( 3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879URLpmid: 18697684 |
| [21] | Rassin E., Muris P., Booster E., & Kolsloot I . ( 2008). Indecisiveness and informational tunnel vision. Personality and Individual Differences, 45( 1), 96-102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.006URL |
| [22] | Rucker D. D., Galinsky A. D., & Dubois D . ( 2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22( 3), 352-368. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001URL |
| [23] | Smith P. K., Dijksterhuis A & Wigboldus D. H. J. ., ( 2008). Powerful people make good decisions even when they consciously think. Psychological Science, 19( 12), 1258-1259. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02207.xURLpmid: 19121134 |
| [24] | Smith P.K., & Trope Y. , ( 2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90( 4), 578-596. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578URLpmid: 16649856 |
| [25] | Tversky A.& Shafir E. ,( 1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3( 6), 358-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.xURL |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 黄龙, 徐富明, 胡笑羽. 眼动轨迹匹配法：一种研究决策过程的新方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1454-1461. |
| [2] | 李馨, 刘培, 肖晨洁, 王笑天, 李爱梅. 组织中权力如何促进亲社会行为?责任感知的中介作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1586-1598. |
| [3] | 王海侠, 贾汇源, 孙海龙, 李爱梅. 互联网连接性降低自主性的机制与后效[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(11): 1802-1811. |
| [4] | 程南华, 李占星, 朱莉琪. 儿童的社会权力认知及其与社会行为的关系[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 283-293. |
| [5] | 江红艳, 刘邦舜, 孙配贞. 权力感对消费行为的影响及其理论解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(1): 156-168. |
| [6] | 金剑;李晔;陈冬明;郭凯娇. 权力和地位对自利行为的影响及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(5): 878-886. |
| [7] | 王浩;俞国良. 亲密关系中的权力认知[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(4): 639-651. |
| [8] | 宋云嫱;徐瑞珩;邢采. 风险敏感理论：需要驱动风险决策[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(3): 486-499. |
| [9] | 孙红日, Felicia Pratto. 权力基础理论：对应生存需要的权力[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(11): 1982-1991. |
| [10] | 严瑜;何亚男. 领导对建言反应的动机感知作用机制：基于归因理论的阐释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(9): 1457-1466. |
| [11] | 蔡頠;吴嵩;寇彧. 权力对亲社会行为的影响：机制及相关因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(1): 120-131. |
| [12] | 卫旭华;刘咏梅;陈思璇. 组织等级：基本概念及作用机理[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(8): 1467-1479. |
| [13] | 段锦云;卢志巍;沈彦晗. 组织中的权力：概念、理论和效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(6): 1070-1078. |
| [14] | 占小军;李志成;梁雪娇. 顾客欺凌行为：概念、测量、形成与作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(4): 690-701. |
| [15] | 魏子晗, 李兴珊. 决策过程的追踪：基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(12): 2029-2041. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4617
