直觉思维和分析思维对合作行为的影响
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：The Effect of Intuitive and Analytical Thinking Style on Cooperation
- 论文作者：李圣腾 ; 莫雷
- 英文论文作者：Li Shengteng ; Mo Lei ; School of psychology ; South China Normal University
- 年：2015
- 作者机构：华南师范大学心理学院;
- 论文关键词：思维方式 ; 直觉思维 ; 分析思维 ; 合作
- 英文论文关键词：Thinking style ; Intuition ; Analysis ; Cooperation
- 会议召开时间：2015-10-16
- 会议录名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议摘要集——心理学与社会发展
- 英文会议录名称：Proceedings of the 18th National Academic Congress of Psychology
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：B842.5
- 学会代码：ZGXG
- 会议名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议
- 会议地点：中国天津
- 主办单位：中国心理学会
- 学会名称：中国心理学会
- 页数：2
- 文件大小：758k
- 原文格式：D
- 会议级别：全国
摘要
合作是心理学关于社会行为研究的一个主要内容,前人主要从四个角度研究合作行为及其影响因素:一是进化论的视角;二是基于利益的视角;三是生物基础视角;四是思维方式的视角。然而,已有关于思维方式对合作行为的影响的研究数量有限且结论有较大争议。Piovesan和Wengstrom(2009)发现独裁者游戏中反应快的被试比反应慢的被试更自私。但Lotito,Migheli和Ortona(2012)研究发现贡献额越多,被试的反应时越短,被试对合作的反应快于对背叛的反应,合作是默认的、自然的选择。Rand等人(2012)发现直觉思维能促进合作而反思和理性会减少合作。然而,Tingh?g,Andersson和Caroline(2013)并没有发现直觉会增加合作行为。本研究系统进行四个实验进一步考察思维方式对合作行为的影响。实验1先用CRT(cognitive reflection test)测试区分出直觉思维和分析思维被试,再用公共物品游戏范式考察不同思维方式的被试合作水平的差异,发现直觉思维被试的合作水平显著高于分析思维被试,且两组被试对组内成员贡献额的预期差异不显著,这说明直觉思维被试具有更高的亲社会合作偏好。实验2用图片启动了被试的分析思维,考察启动分析思维是否会降低个体的合作水平,发现在启动力度较小的情况下启动分析思维组被试和控制组的合作水平没有显著差异。实验3用内隐组词范式分别启动了被试的直觉思维和分析思维,考察启动不同思维方式是否会影响被试的合作水平,发现启动直觉思维的被试比启动分析思维的被试具有更多的合作行为。实验4选取参加过公共物品游戏的被试,用与实验3相同的内隐组词范式探究有公共物品游戏经验是否影响不同思维方式对合作行为的作用模式,发现对于有公共物品游戏经验的被试,启动直觉思维并不能提高个体合作水平。该结果表明,启动不同思维方式对个体合作行为的影响受到个体以往人际合作经历的调节。本研究的结果表明,个体特质性的直觉思维和通过语义启动的直觉思维,均能增加个体合作行为,但直觉思维对合作行为的促进作用仅发生在没有类似决策经验的群体中。
Cooperation is a major research content of social behavior study in psychology, former research mainly focus on cooperative behavior and its influencing factors from four perspective.The first is from an evolutionary perspective; The second is based on the perspective of interest; The third is based on the perspective of biological basis;The fourth is from the perspective of thinking style.However, existing research about the impact of thinking style on cooperative behavior is limited and conclusion is controversial.Piovesan and Wengstrom(2009) found that participants who made decisions more quickly in the dictator game made more selfish choice compared with slower participants.But Lotito, Migheli, & Ortona(2012) found that the more contribution, the shorter the reaction time of subjects need, subjects react more quickly on cooperation compared with betrayal, cooperation is the default, natural selection. Rand et al.(2012) found that intuition thinking can promote cooperation behavior and rational reflection can reduce cooperation. However, Tinghog, Andersson & Caroline(2013) did not repeat the effect of thinking style on cooperative behavior. This study aims to explore the effects of different thinking styles on human cooperative behavior from a cognitive perspective, we did four experiments. Experiment one use a CRT(cognitive reflection test) test to distinguish between intuition and analysis group, then measuring the level of cooperation using the public goods game paradigm, we find that the level of cooperation of intuitive group is significantly higher than the analysis group, and both group member measure the other three members' contribution during the game, there is no significant differences in the expected contribution of the other three, which shows that intuition groups seem to have more pro-social preferences to be cooperative, not because of the optimistic estimate with the other group members. Experiment two use the picture of "The Thinkers" to prime analysis thinking, we find no significant differences between the primed group and the control group. Experiment three use a more implicit way to prime analysis thinking and intuitive thinking, we find that the level of cooperation including intuitive vocabulary is significantly higher than the group containing reflection vocabulary. Participants in experiment four own a similar decision task laboratory experience,they need to do the experiment three,we find people who have a similar experience, regardless of priming intuitive thinking or analysis thinking,there is no significant difference. Our conclusion is that intuition will increase cooperation occurs only among naive people, who had not participant the similar decision task in the laboratory. According to the results of this study, we can propose that intuition will increase cooperation, while individual differences adjusts the effect of intuition on cooperation, only people who had not participated in a similar experiment previously, intuition will increase cooperation.
Cooperation is a major research content of social behavior study in psychology, former research mainly focus on cooperative behavior and its influencing factors from four perspective.The first is from an evolutionary perspective; The second is based on the perspective of interest; The third is based on the perspective of biological basis;The fourth is from the perspective of thinking style.However, existing research about the impact of thinking style on cooperative behavior is limited and conclusion is controversial.Piovesan and Wengstrom(2009) found that participants who made decisions more quickly in the dictator game made more selfish choice compared with slower participants.But Lotito, Migheli, & Ortona(2012) found that the more contribution, the shorter the reaction time of subjects need, subjects react more quickly on cooperation compared with betrayal, cooperation is the default, natural selection. Rand et al.(2012) found that intuition thinking can promote cooperation behavior and rational reflection can reduce cooperation. However, Tinghog, Andersson & Caroline(2013) did not repeat the effect of thinking style on cooperative behavior. This study aims to explore the effects of different thinking styles on human cooperative behavior from a cognitive perspective, we did four experiments. Experiment one use a CRT(cognitive reflection test) test to distinguish between intuition and analysis group, then measuring the level of cooperation using the public goods game paradigm, we find that the level of cooperation of intuitive group is significantly higher than the analysis group, and both group member measure the other three members' contribution during the game, there is no significant differences in the expected contribution of the other three, which shows that intuition groups seem to have more pro-social preferences to be cooperative, not because of the optimistic estimate with the other group members. Experiment two use the picture of "The Thinkers" to prime analysis thinking, we find no significant differences between the primed group and the control group. Experiment three use a more implicit way to prime analysis thinking and intuitive thinking, we find that the level of cooperation including intuitive vocabulary is significantly higher than the group containing reflection vocabulary. Participants in experiment four own a similar decision task laboratory experience,they need to do the experiment three,we find people who have a similar experience, regardless of priming intuitive thinking or analysis thinking,there is no significant difference. Our conclusion is that intuition will increase cooperation occurs only among naive people, who had not participant the similar decision task in the laboratory. According to the results of this study, we can propose that intuition will increase cooperation, while individual differences adjusts the effect of intuition on cooperation, only people who had not participated in a similar experiment previously, intuition will increase cooperation.
引文