), 刘智慧2, 王笑雨2, 迟智超2, 李卫君3() 1东南大学人文学院医学人文学系, 南京 211189
2辽宁师范大学心理学院, 大连 116029
3辽宁师范大学脑与认知神经科学研究中心, 大连 116029
收稿日期:2020-11-12发布日期:2021-06-25通讯作者:尚俊辰,李卫君E-mail:junchen_20081@163.com;li_wj@126.com基金资助:辽宁省哲学社会科学规划基金项目(L19BSH005)Influence of vocal attractiveness on decision-making in a two-person ultimatum game and a three-person ultimatum game
SHANG Junchen1(), LIU Zhihui2, WANG Xiaoyu2, CHI Zhichao2, LI Weijun3() 1Department of Medical Humanities, School of Humanities, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
2School of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
3Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
Received:2020-11-12Published:2021-06-25Contact:SHANG Junchen,LI Weijun E-mail:junchen_20081@163.com;li_wj@126.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 本研究用两人和三人最后通牒博弈任务探究男性嗓音吸引力对决策的影响。实验1发现, 高吸引力的嗓音会提高被试对不公平分配方案的接受率。实验2发现, 即使分配方案对第三方接受者公平, 对被试不公平, 第三方接受者的高吸引力嗓音仍然会提高被试对方案的接受率。综上, 嗓音吸引力可以诱发类似面孔吸引力的“美貌津贴”效应。
图/表 8
图1愉悦度评价。小人特点代表了不同程度的愉悦度。
图1愉悦度评价。小人特点代表了不同程度的愉悦度。
图2唤醒度评价。小人特点代表了不同程度的唤醒度。
图2唤醒度评价。小人特点代表了不同程度的唤醒度。表1筛选的32个嗓音的唤醒度、愉悦度和吸引力的评分均值与标准差(M±SD)
| 嗓音吸引力等级 | 唤醒度 | 愉悦度 | 吸引力 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
| 高吸引力嗓音 | 4.67 | 0.38 | 5.07 | 0.22 | 4.57 | 0.38 |
| 低吸引力嗓音 | 4.84 | 0.41 | 4.94 | 0.19 | 3.47 | 0.18 |
表1筛选的32个嗓音的唤醒度、愉悦度和吸引力的评分均值与标准差(M±SD)
| 嗓音吸引力等级 | 唤醒度 | 愉悦度 | 吸引力 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
| 高吸引力嗓音 | 4.67 | 0.38 | 5.07 | 0.22 | 4.57 | 0.38 |
| 低吸引力嗓音 | 4.84 | 0.41 | 4.94 | 0.19 | 3.47 | 0.18 |
表2高、低吸引力嗓音声学参数的均值和标准差以及差异性分析
| 声学参数 | 高吸引力 | 低吸引力 | t | p | Cohen'sd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F0 | 121.40 (12.48) | 162.97 (18.39) | 7.48 | < 0.001 | 1.32 |
| f1 | 552.93 (123.66) | 691.47 (161.21) | 2.73 | 0.011 | 0.48 |
| f2 | 1469.92 (516.13) | 1411.14 (469.62) | -0.33 | 0.738 | 0.06 |
| f3 | 2857.83 (167.13) | 2923.87 (200.95) | 1.01 | 0.32 | 0.18 |
| f4 | 3772.12 (239.29) | 3842.58 (190.16) | 0.92 | 0.364 | 0.16 |
| Df | 1073.07 (93.55) | 1050.37 (72.78) | -0.77 | 0.45 | 0.14 |
| Pf | -0.18 (0.46) | 0.18 (0.43) | 2.31 | 0.028 | 0.41 |
| Jitter | 0.63 (0.25) | 0.50 (0.32) | -1.22 | 0.234 | 0.22 |
| Shimmer | 5.81 (2.06) | 5.63 (0.87) | -0.32 | 0.751 | 0.06 |
| HNR | 15.83 (2.31) | 16.11 (3.29) | 0.28 | 0.783 | 0.05 |
表2高、低吸引力嗓音声学参数的均值和标准差以及差异性分析
| 声学参数 | 高吸引力 | 低吸引力 | t | p | Cohen'sd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F0 | 121.40 (12.48) | 162.97 (18.39) | 7.48 | < 0.001 | 1.32 |
| f1 | 552.93 (123.66) | 691.47 (161.21) | 2.73 | 0.011 | 0.48 |
| f2 | 1469.92 (516.13) | 1411.14 (469.62) | -0.33 | 0.738 | 0.06 |
| f3 | 2857.83 (167.13) | 2923.87 (200.95) | 1.01 | 0.32 | 0.18 |
| f4 | 3772.12 (239.29) | 3842.58 (190.16) | 0.92 | 0.364 | 0.16 |
| Df | 1073.07 (93.55) | 1050.37 (72.78) | -0.77 | 0.45 | 0.14 |
| Pf | -0.18 (0.46) | 0.18 (0.43) | 2.31 | 0.028 | 0.41 |
| Jitter | 0.63 (0.25) | 0.50 (0.32) | -1.22 | 0.234 | 0.22 |
| Shimmer | 5.81 (2.06) | 5.63 (0.87) | -0.32 | 0.751 | 0.06 |
| HNR | 15.83 (2.31) | 16.11 (3.29) | 0.28 | 0.783 | 0.05 |
图3实验1程序。被试先听到提议者的嗓音, 然后对金钱分配方案进行决策, 最后屏幕显示最终分配结果。
图3实验1程序。被试先听到提议者的嗓音, 然后对金钱分配方案进行决策, 最后屏幕显示最终分配结果。
图4两人最后通牒博弈中, 不同吸引力嗓音提议者条件下, 被试对公平和不公平方案的接受率。**p < 0.01
图4两人最后通牒博弈中, 不同吸引力嗓音提议者条件下, 被试对公平和不公平方案的接受率。**p < 0.01
图5实验2程序。先播放第三方接受者的嗓音, 然后对金钱分配方案进行选择, 最后呈现最终分配结果。
图5实验2程序。先播放第三方接受者的嗓音, 然后对金钱分配方案进行选择, 最后呈现最终分配结果。
图6三人最后通牒博弈中, 被试在不同嗓音吸引力的第三方接受者的条件下, 对不同分配方案的接受率。**p < 0.01
图6三人最后通牒博弈中, 被试在不同嗓音吸引力的第三方接受者的条件下, 对不同分配方案的接受率。**p < 0.01参考文献 30
| [1] | 张如倩, 刘洁琼, 李先春.(2019). 社会互动视角下人际公平形成的脑机制. 心理学报, 51(9),1007-1017. |
| [2] | 郑怡, 尚俊辰, 李伯冉, 梁耀文, 何嘉梅, 由一林, 蒋重清.(2017). 人类嗓音吸引力的影响因素. 心理科学进展, 25(2),237-246. |
| [3] | Alexopoulos, J., Pfabigan, D. M., Göschl, F., Bauer, H., & Fischmeister, F. P. S.(2013). Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7,312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312 . doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312URLpmid: 23818878 |
| [4] | Alexopoulos, J., Pfabigan, D. M., Lamm, C., Bauer, H., & Fischmeister, F. P. S.(2012). Do we care about the powerless third? An ERP study of the three-person ultimatum game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6,59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00059 . doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00059URLpmid: 22470328 |
| [5] | Berry, D. S.(1990). Vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness: Effects on stranger, self, and friend impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(3),141-153. doi: 10.1007/BF00996223URL |
| [6] | Bestelmeyer, P. E. G., Latinus, M., Bruckert, L., Rouger, J., Crabbe, F., & Belin, P.(2012). Implicitly perceived vocal attractiveness modulates prefrontal cortex activity. Cerebral Cortex, 22(6),1263-1270. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr204URL |
| [7] | Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J.(1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1),49-59. |
| [8] | Chen, J., Zhong, J., Zhang, Y. X., Li, P., Zhang, A. Q., Tan, Q. B., & Li, H.(2012). Electrophysiological correlates of processing facial attractiveness and its influence on cooperative behavior. Neuroscience Letters, 517(2),65-70. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.02.082pmid: 22410307 |
| [9] | Fan, B. N., Zhao, M. L., Jin, J., Ding, H., & Ma, Q. G.(2018). Rational civil servant interviewers: Evidence from an event-related potential study of beauty premiums in Chinese civil servant interviews. Experimental Brain Research, 236,3159-3168. doi: 10.1007/s00221-018-5373-5URL |
| [10] | Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. -G., & Buchner, A.(2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2),175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146URL |
| [11] | Ferdenzi, C., Patel, S., Mehu-Blantar, I., Khidasheli, M., Sander, D., & Delplanque, S.(2013). Voice attractiveness: Influence of stimulus duration and type. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2),405-413. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0275-0pmid: 23239065 |
| [12] | Groyecka, A., Pisanski, K., Sorokowska, A., Havlíček, J., Karwowski, M., Puts, D.,... Sorokowsk, P.(2017). Attractiveness is multimodal: Beauty is also in the nose and ear of the beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,778. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00778 . doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00778URLpmid: 28572777 |
| [13] | Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E.(1994). Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review, 84(5),1174-1194. |
| [14] | Hodges-Simeon, C. R., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Puts, D. A.(2011). Voice correlates of mating success in men: Examining ‘‘contests’’ versus ‘‘mate choice’’ modes of sexual selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3),551-557. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9625-0pmid: 20369377 |
| [15] | Kaltwasser, L., Hildebrandt, A., Wilhelm, O., & Sommer, W.(2016). Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(10),1608-1617. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw069pmid: 27261490 |
| [16] | Ma, Q. G., & Hu, Y.(2015). Beauty matters: Social preferences in a three-person ultimatum game. PLoS ONE, 10(5),e0125806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125806 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125806URL |
| [17] | Ma, Q. G., Hu, Y., Jiang, S. S., & Meng, L.(2015). The undermining effect of facial attractiveness on brain responses to fairness in the ultimatum game: An ERP study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9,77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00077 . |
| [18] | Ma, Q. G., Qian, D., Hu, L. F., & Wang, L.(2017). Hello handsome! Male's facial attractiveness gives rise to female's fairness bias in ultimatum game scenarios-an ERP study. PLoS ONE, 12(7),e0180459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180459 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180459URL |
| [19] | Morris, J. D.(1995). Observations: SAM: The self-assessment manikin. An efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of Advertising Research, 35,63-68. |
| [20] | Oguchi, T., & Kikuchi, H.(1997). Voice and interpersonal attraction. Japanese Psychological Research, 39(1),56-61. doi: 10.1111/jpr.1997.39.issue-1URL |
| [21] | Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G.(2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2),171-188. doi: 10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026978.14316.74URL |
| [22] | Oppewal, H., & Tougareva, E.(1992). A three-person ultimatum game to investigate effects of differences in need, sharing rules and observability on bargaining behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(2),203-213. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(92)90030-BURL |
| [23] | Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R.(2019). Vocal attractiveness. In S., Frühholz, & P., Belin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of voice perception (pp.607-625). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. |
| [24] | Pisanski, K., & Rendall, D.(2011). The prioritization of voice fundamental frequency or formants in listeners’ assessments of speaker size, masculinity, and attractiveness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(4),2201-2212. doi: 10.1121/1.3552866URL |
| [25] | Rezlescu, C., Penton, T., Walsh, V., Tsujimura, H., Scott, S. K., & Banissy, M. J.(2015). Dominant voices and attractive faces: The contribution of visual and auditory information to integrated person impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4),355-370. doi: 10.1007/s10919-015-0214-8URL |
| [26] | Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D.(2003). The neural basis of economic decision- making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626),1755-1758. pmid: 12805551 |
| [27] | Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O’Connor, J. J. M., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R.(2012). Voice pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33(3),210-216. |
| [28] | Zhang, H., Liu, M., Li, W. J., & Sommer, W.(2020). Human voice attractiveness processing: Electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 150,107827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107827 . doi: S0301-0511(19)30611-8URLpmid: 31756365 |
| [29] | Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E.(1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(2),67-82. doi: 10.1007/BF00990791URL |
| [30] | Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H., & Miyake, K.(1990). The vocal attractiveness stereotype: Replication and elaboration. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(2),97-112. doi: 10.1007/BF01670437URL |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 张振, 齐春辉, 王洋, 赵辉, 王小新, 高晓雷. 内群体偏爱或黑羊效应?经济博弈中公平规范执行的群体偏见[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 329-339. |
| [2] | 陈思静, 杨莎莎. 利他性惩罚的动机[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(11): 1901-1910. |
| [3] | 廖嘉俊, 李红, 吴寅. 睾酮与人类决策行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(9): 1607-1621. |
| [4] | 郭容, 傅鑫媛. 社会阶层信号及其对人际水平社会互动的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(7): 1268-1274. |
| [5] | 刘永芳, 范雯健, 侯日霞. 从理论到研究, 再到应用：塞勒及其贡献[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(3): 381-393. |
| [6] | 张慧, 马红宇, 徐富明, 刘燕君, 史燕伟. 最后通牒博弈中的公平偏好：基于双系统理论的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 319-330. |
| [7] | 聂旭刚, 陈平, 张缨斌, 何引红. 题目位置效应的概念及检测[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(2): 368-380. |
| [8] | 赵书松, 张一杰, 赵君. 第三方组织公平：研究视角、内容与设计[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(12): 2216-2229. |
| [9] | 陈童, 伍珍. 儿童的分配公平性：心理理论的作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(8): 1299-1309. |
| [10] | 郭秀艳, 郑 丽, 程雪梅, 刘映杰, 李 林. 不公平感及相关决策的认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(6): 903-911. |
| [11] | 郑怡;尚俊辰; 李伯冉;梁耀文;何嘉梅; 由一林; 蒋重清. 人类嗓音吸引力的影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(2): 237-246. |
| [12] | 严瑜;张振嘉. 组织公平在多层辱虐管理中的角色：基于道德排除理论的多视角分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(1): 145-155. |
| [13] | 何幸;崔丽莹. 他人财富情绪：妒忌的社会评估比较与认知加工分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(9): 1485-1495. |
| [14] | 徐富明;史燕伟;李欧;张慧;李燕. 民众收入不公平感的机制与对策——基于参照依赖和损失规避双视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(5): 665-675. |
| [15] | 郭永玉;杨沈龙;李静;胡小勇. 社会阶层心理学视角下的公平研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(8): 1299-1311. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5520
