Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2017/49:3 PP.383-392
The decision-making performance of self-other has been a hotspot in resent studies. However, previous studies had shown no obvious distinction between predicting others' decision and deciding for others, and their theories had not yet been able to perfectly explain the mechanism as well. Integrating the Construal Level Theory and the Psychological Theory, the current study proposes the Perspective-Distance Effect Hypothesis to explain the mechanism of decision-making under different perspectives (for oneself, for prediction, & for others), and provides the empirical evidence.
In order to separate the influence of perspective-selecting and psychological distance in decision-making process, and prove that perspective-selecting process does exert influence on decision-making, Experiment 1 was designed to perform under unconscious thinking mode in complex condition. On the contrary, Experiment 2 was conducted under conscious thinking mode in complex condition to prove that perspective selecting (for oneself, for prediction, & for others) and psychological distance simultaneously influence decision-making. Meanwhile, intimacy degree was an important factor that effected the process of perspective selecting.
The current study employed the same paradigm as Dijksterhuis (2004), and Bos et al. (2010) used in the research of unconscious thinking. In Experiment 1, three or two participants took part in the experiment as a group. In the three-people group, participants were randomly assigned to the role of H (make decision for others), M (make decision for oneself) or P (predicting other's decision) respectively. In the two-people group, one of them played role M (make decision for oneself) and the other randomly played either H (make decision for others) or P (predicting other's decision). Participants were required to finish the intimacy degree scale at the beginning of the experiment. After that, the instructions were presented on the screen and participants were required to read them carefully. 48 pieces of information about 4 different lessons (12 for each) were then randomly presented one by one on the screen. Then, participants were required to do a distraction task for 4 minutes. By doing so, participants' cognitive resources were occupied so that they would not be able to consider consciously. Then, the participants needed to assess the 4 lessons respectively on a scale from 1 to 20. After the assessment, participants made their decision according to their role.
Participants in Experiment 2 were divided into either stranger group or intimate group according to their relationship in real life without finishing the intimacy degree scale. Instead of doing the distraction task as in experiment 1, participants spent 4 minutes consciously thinking about the information presented before. Then they finished the assessment and made decisions according to their role.
The results of Experiment 1 show that under unconscious thinking mode in complex condition, the performance score of decision-making for prediction was significantly lower than that for oneself and for others, but there was no significant difference between the latter two. The result of Experiment 2 shows that, 1) under conscious thinking mode in complex condition, the performance score of decision-making for others was significantly higher than that for oneself or for prediction while there were no significant difference between the latter two in the stranger group; 2) In intimate group, there are no significant difference between the performance of decision-making for prediction and for others, but both were better than the performance of decision making for oneself.
These results provided supportive evidence for the Perspective-Distance Effect Hypothesis. The findings of the study could also be useful for decision-making in real life. Compared to the performance of decision-making for oneself and for prediction, the performance of decision-making for others is more stable, and generally better. When predicting other's decision, one tends to underestimate other's performance under unconscious thinking mode in complex condition, while under conscious thinking mode, one tends to precisely estimate other's performance when predicting a stranger's decision and to overestimate other's performance when predicting a friend's decision.
Alba, J. W., & Marmorstein, H. (1987). The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 14-25.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2004). Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2), 74-85.
Bos, M. W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2011). The benefits of "sleeping on things":Unconscious thought leads to automatic weighting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 4-8.
Chang, C. C., Chuang, S. C., Cheng, Y. H., & Huang, T. Y. (2012). The compromise effect in choosing for others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 109-122.
Chen, W., Ding, J., & Yin, W. (2009). Study on integration of the interpretation models of theory of mind:A "Stage-classification" framework. Psychological Research, 2(3), 26-32.
[陈巍, 丁峻, Yin, W. (2009). 心理理论解释模型的整合实验:一个"阶段-分类"的框架. 心理研究, 2(3), 26-32.]
Creswell, J. D., Bursley, J. K., & Satpute, A. B. (2013). Neural reactivation links unconscious thought to decision-making performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(8), 863-869.
Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice:A psychological distance account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1105-1117.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice:The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005-1007.
Dijksterhuis, A., & van Olden, Z. (2006). On the benefits of thinking unconsciously:Unconscious thought can increase post-choice satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 627-631.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., van der Leij, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2009). Predicting soccer matches after unconscious and conscious thought as a function of expertise. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1381-1387.
Ding, J., & Chen, W. (2009). Study of the theory of mind at thirty:Review and reflection. Psychological Exploration, 29(1), 23-26.
[丁峻, 陈巍. (2009). 心理理论研究三十年:回顾与反思. 心理学探新, 29(1), 23-26.]
Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), 226-235.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2012). Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self-other discrepancies in medical decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 18(1), 38-51.
Happé, F. G. E., Winner, E., & Brownell, H. (1998). The getting of wisdom:Theory of mind in old age. Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 358-362.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating:Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.
Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2003). Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 154-168.
Kogut, T., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2008). Who helps more? How self-other discrepancies influence decisions in helping situations. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(8), 595-606.
Kray, L. J. (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 82-106.
Kray, L., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Differential weighting in choice versus advice:I'll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 207-218.
Liu, C. C., Chen, B., Liu, L. X., Yuan, X. X., & Wang, Z. J. (2013). Does standers-by always see more than gamesters? A review on the self-other decision making differences. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(5), 879-885.
[刘翠翠, 陈彬, 刘磊鑫, 原献学, 汪祚军. (2013). 当局者迷, 旁观者清?自我-他人决策的理性差异及其机制. 心理科学进展, 21(5), 879-885.]
Liu, Y. F., Wang, P., Zhuang, J. Y., Zhong, J., Sun, Q. Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Self-other differences in decision-making:Questions, studies and reflection. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 580-587.
[刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅. (2014). 自我-他人决策差异:问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 580-587.]
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension:Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269.
Lu, J. Y., Xie, X. F., & Xu, J. Z. (2013). Desirability or feasibility:Self-other decision-making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 144-155.
Nan, X. L., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives:Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Polman, E. (2010). Information distortion in self-other decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 432-435.
Polman, E. (2012a). Self-other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141-150.
Polman, E. (2012b). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 980-993.
Qi, F. Z., & Liu, Y. F. (2013). Risk preferences under the pros and cons situations:The roles of social distance and decision maker. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). East China Normal University, Shanghai.
[齐芳珠, 刘永芳. (2013). 得失情境下决策者角色与社会距离对风险偏好的影响(本科毕业论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.]
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The probative value of simultaneous contradictory belief:Reply to Gigerenzer and Regier (1996). Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 27-30.
Stone, E. R., & Allgaier, L. (2008). A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 114-129.
Stone, E. R., Choi, Y., de Bruin, W. B., & Mandel, D. R. (2013). I can take the risk, but you should be safe:Self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 250-267.
Sun, Y., Li, S., & Yin, X. L. (2007). Two systems in decision-making and reasoning:Heuristic system and analytic system. Advances in Psychological Science, 15(5), 721-726.
[孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. (2007). 决策与推理的双系统--启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721-726.]
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.
Xiong, Z. H., & Li, Q. W. (2001). On the three interpretive theories of the development of child's theory of mind. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 20(2), 70-77, 90.
[熊哲宏, 李其维. (2001). 模拟论、模块论与理论论:儿童"心理理论"发展的三大解释理论. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 20(2), 70-77, 90.]
Xu, J. Z., & Xie, X. F. (2011). Self-other decision making difference:A construal level perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(1), 11-20.
[徐惊蛰, 谢晓非. (2011). 解释水平视角下的自己-他人决策差异. 心理学报, 43(1), 11-20.]
Yan, D. F., & Sengupta, J. (2011). Effects of construal level on the price-quality relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 376-389.
Zhang, W., Liu, Y. F., Sun, Q. Z., Hu, Q. X., & Liu, Y. (2014). Risk preference in making romantic relationship decisions for others with different psychological distance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46, 1580-1590.
[张葳, 刘永芳, 孙庆洲, 胡启旭, 刘毅. (2014). 异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策的风险偏好. 心理学报, 46, 1580-1590]
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Sarr, B., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). A matter of perspective:Choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 618-622.