情感预测中的自我与他人:心理距离和经验决策的作用。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Rachel Barkan
{"title":"情感预测中的自我与他人:心理距离和经验决策的作用。","authors":"Rachel Barkan","doi":"10.3390/bs14111036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This work tests self-other differences in the impact bias using the perspectives of psychological distance and decision from description vs. experience. Two studies compared the bias participants made for themselves and for others in a sequential gambling task. The task involved two identical gambles where the first gamble was mandatory and participants made decisions (accept or reject) for the second gamble. Planned decisions were made anticipating a gain or loss in the first gamble, and revised decisions were made following the actual experience of gain or loss. Study 1 compared decisions for self, abstract other, and a close friend. Study 2 replicated the comparison between the self and a close friend and added a measure of empathy. Both studies demonstrated an impact bias indicating that participants tended to overestimate the impact of anticipated outcomes on their tendency towards risk. Specifically, revised decisions indicated risk-aversion shifts after experienced gain and risk-seeking shifts after experienced loss. A reversed pattern emerged for close friends, indicating risky shifts after gain and cautious shifts after loss in Study 1 and for highly empathetic participants in Study 2. Assessing the utility functions that underlie participants' decisions revealed a qualitative difference. The utility function for the self was consistent with prospect theory (with moderate intensity and diminishing sensitivity), while the utility function for others was more intense with little or no diminishing sensitivity. This research offers new insights regarding the roles of psychological distance and description vs. experience in affective forecasting and impact bias for self vs. other.</p>","PeriodicalId":8742,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences","volume":"14 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self vs. Other in Affective Forecasting: The Role of Psychological Distance and Decision from Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Barkan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bs14111036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This work tests self-other differences in the impact bias using the perspectives of psychological distance and decision from description vs. experience. Two studies compared the bias participants made for themselves and for others in a sequential gambling task. The task involved two identical gambles where the first gamble was mandatory and participants made decisions (accept or reject) for the second gamble. Planned decisions were made anticipating a gain or loss in the first gamble, and revised decisions were made following the actual experience of gain or loss. Study 1 compared decisions for self, abstract other, and a close friend. Study 2 replicated the comparison between the self and a close friend and added a measure of empathy. Both studies demonstrated an impact bias indicating that participants tended to overestimate the impact of anticipated outcomes on their tendency towards risk. Specifically, revised decisions indicated risk-aversion shifts after experienced gain and risk-seeking shifts after experienced loss. A reversed pattern emerged for close friends, indicating risky shifts after gain and cautious shifts after loss in Study 1 and for highly empathetic participants in Study 2. Assessing the utility functions that underlie participants' decisions revealed a qualitative difference. The utility function for the self was consistent with prospect theory (with moderate intensity and diminishing sensitivity), while the utility function for others was more intense with little or no diminishing sensitivity. This research offers new insights regarding the roles of psychological distance and description vs. experience in affective forecasting and impact bias for self vs. other.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Sciences\",\"volume\":\"14 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591090/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111036\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究从心理距离和根据描述与经验做出决定的角度,检验了影响偏差中的自我与他人差异。两项研究比较了参与者在连续赌博任务中对自己和对他人的偏见。该任务涉及两次相同的赌博,其中第一次赌博是强制性的,参与者对第二次赌博做出决定(接受或拒绝)。计划性决策是在预测第一场赌博的输赢后做出的,而修正性决策则是在实际体验到输赢后做出的。研究 1 比较了为自己、抽象他人和亲密朋友做出的决定。研究 2 重复了自己和好友之间的比较,并增加了移情的测量。这两项研究都显示了一种影响偏差,即参与者倾向于高估预期结果对其风险倾向的影响。具体来说,修订后的决策表明,在经历收益后,参与者会转向规避风险,而在经历损失后,参与者会转向寻求风险。在研究 1 和研究 2 中,对于具有高度同理心的参与者来说,亲密朋友也出现了相反的模式,即在获得收益后倾向于冒险,而在遭受损失后倾向于谨慎。对参与者决策所依据的效用函数进行评估后发现,两者之间存在质的差异。对自己的效用函数与前景理论一致(强度适中,灵敏度递减),而对他人的效用函数强度更大,灵敏度几乎没有递减。这项研究为心理距离、描述与经验在情感预测中的作用以及自我与他人的影响偏差提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Self vs. Other in Affective Forecasting: The Role of Psychological Distance and Decision from Experience.

This work tests self-other differences in the impact bias using the perspectives of psychological distance and decision from description vs. experience. Two studies compared the bias participants made for themselves and for others in a sequential gambling task. The task involved two identical gambles where the first gamble was mandatory and participants made decisions (accept or reject) for the second gamble. Planned decisions were made anticipating a gain or loss in the first gamble, and revised decisions were made following the actual experience of gain or loss. Study 1 compared decisions for self, abstract other, and a close friend. Study 2 replicated the comparison between the self and a close friend and added a measure of empathy. Both studies demonstrated an impact bias indicating that participants tended to overestimate the impact of anticipated outcomes on their tendency towards risk. Specifically, revised decisions indicated risk-aversion shifts after experienced gain and risk-seeking shifts after experienced loss. A reversed pattern emerged for close friends, indicating risky shifts after gain and cautious shifts after loss in Study 1 and for highly empathetic participants in Study 2. Assessing the utility functions that underlie participants' decisions revealed a qualitative difference. The utility function for the self was consistent with prospect theory (with moderate intensity and diminishing sensitivity), while the utility function for others was more intense with little or no diminishing sensitivity. This research offers new insights regarding the roles of psychological distance and description vs. experience in affective forecasting and impact bias for self vs. other.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral Sciences
Behavioral Sciences Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
429
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信