心理技术与应用 ›› 2025, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (4): 215-225.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

实验室测得的亲社会倾向可信吗?社会偏好的单模态与跨模态比较

  

  • 收稿日期:2025-03-04 出版日期:2025-04-19 发布日期:2025-04-19

Are Laboratory-Measured Prosocial Tendencies Reliable?Uni-Modal vs Cross-Modal Comparisons of Social Preferences

  • Received:2025-03-04 Online:2025-04-19 Published:2025-04-19

摘要: 传统的测量社会偏好的实验范式通常要求受试者在自我和他人获得不同收益的选项间权衡,在这种决策信息有限的单模态情境中测得社会偏好的生态效度令人生疑。采用延迟补偿范式,通过比较318名被试在单模态情境和跨模态情境的补偿金额和社会价值取向分数,比较了单模态情境与更接近现实的跨模态情境的社会偏好的差异。结果发现:个体在单模态中的亲社会倾向低于跨模态情境;基于传统测量工具测得的社会价值取向分数与单模态情境的补偿金额相关,而与跨模态情境的补偿金额无关。研究结果提示,社会偏好的现有测量工具生态效度不足,并为今后研究者选取并发展适当的测量工具提供了参考与启示。

关键词:

Abstract:

Traditional experimental paradigms for measuring social preferences often require participants to choose between options that yield different payoffs for themselves and others. This type of decision-making, which focuses on a single dimension, is referred to as a uni-modal. However, many real-world social decisions are more complex and cannot be reduced to simple monetary trade-offs, often involving multiple dimensions, referred to as cross-modal. Thus, whether these lab-based paradigms effectively capture social preferences in real-world settings remains questionable. This study employed the delayed compensation method to compare the differences in social preferences measuring across uni-modal and cross-modal
by comparing compensation amounts and social value orientation scores across 318 participants. The results showed that individuals exhibit lower prosocial tendencies in uni-modal compared to cross-modal. In addition, scores of social value orientation measured by traditional tools were found to correlate with compensation in uni-modal but not in cross-modal. These findings highlight the limited ecological validity of existing tools for measuring social preferences and provide valuable insights for researchers in selecting and developing more appropriate measurement tools in the future.

Key words:

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 辛自强, 张红川, 孙铃, 于泳红, 辛志勇. 财经素养的内涵与三元结构[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(8): 450 -458 .
[2] 孙 铃, 宋晓星, 周战强, 孟祥轶, 辛自强. 财经知识的概念、结构和测量[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(8): 459 -464 .
[3] 张红川, 苏 凇, 吕杰妤, 张 梅, 辛自强. 基于理性决策的财经能力:概念、结构与测量[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(8): 465 -471 .
[4] 张晶晶, 余真真, 田 浩. 亲环境行为的情理整合模型:生态情感卷入的作用[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(8): 484 -492 .
[5] 韦 晓, 兰继军. 近10年我国心理学研究现状与趋势分析——以第14~19届全国心理学大会论文分布为例[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(8): 503 -512 .
[6] 韩 璞, 张 凤, 雷秀雅. 不同自我权力感知儿童的学校动力绘画特征[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(9): 522 -527 .
[7] 刘洋, 刘筱萌, 李爽怡, 万造君, 苑媛. 家长式领导对工作满意度的影响:上下级关系的中介作用[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(9): 513 -521 .
[8] 陈必忠. 社交网站积极自我呈现与主观幸福感:多重中介模型[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(9): 528 -536 .
[9] 胡锦慧, 辛 聪, 陈幼贞. 编码方式和线索显著性对前瞻记忆的影响[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(9): 537 -542 .
[10] 袁上清, 孙 铁, 郑鹭鸣, 肖 风. 应激对不同动态条件的内隐时间特征的作用[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2018, 6(9): 543 -548 .