• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

设身处地为同伴着想会损害你的成就:风险态度和冲动性方面的自我与他人差异。

Standing in Your Peer's Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity.

作者信息

Białaszek Wojciech, Bakun Piotr, McGoun Elton, Zielonka Piotr

机构信息

Department of Behavior Analysis, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Warsaw, Poland.

Department of Economic Psychology, Centre for Economic Psychology and Decision Sciences, Kozminski University Warsaw, Poland.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 19;7:197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00197. eCollection 2016.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00197
PMID:26925015
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4759252/
Abstract

It is often a good strategy to "stand in the other person's shoes" to see a situation from a different perspective. People frequently attempt to infer what someone else would recommend when no advisor is available to help with a decision. Such situations commonly concern intertemporal or risky choices, and the usual assumption is that lay people make such decisions differently than experts do. The aim of our study was to determine what intertemporal and risky decisions people make when they take their own perspective, the perspective of a peer, and the perspectives of an expert or an entrepreneur. In a series of three experiments using a between-subject design, we found that taking the peer's perspective made participants behave more impulsively and more risk aversely in relation to the participants' own perspectives and in relation to their perceptions of experts and entrepreneurs perspectives. Taking an expert's or an entrepreneur's perspective did not change participants' own intertemporal and risky decisions. We explain the findings using the risk as value and the lesser mind theories. Imagining the opponent's perspective in a negotiation as one is advised to do might inadvertently lead to problems because we always see her as more impulsive and more risk averse than she really is. This means that taking a perspective of an expert - not a peer - would be a good way to predict what decisions our opponents make.

摘要

“站在他人的角度看问题”往往是个不错的策略,这样能从不同视角看待一种情况。当没有顾问帮助做决策时,人们常常试图推断其他人会给出什么建议。这类情况通常涉及跨期或有风险的选择,一般的假设是外行人做这类决策的方式与专家不同。我们研究的目的是确定人们在采取自己的视角、同龄人的视角、专家或企业家的视角时会做出怎样的跨期和有风险的决策。在一系列采用组间设计的三个实验中,我们发现,与参与者自己的视角以及他们对专家和企业家视角的认知相比,采取同龄人的视角会让参与者表现得更冲动且更厌恶风险。采取专家或企业家的视角并没有改变参与者自己的跨期和有风险的决策。我们用风险即价值理论和心智较弱理论来解释这些发现。按照建议在谈判中设想对手的视角可能会无意中引发问题,因为我们总是把对手看得比其实际情况更冲动且更厌恶风险。这意味着采取专家而非同龄人的视角是预测对手会做出何种决策的一个好方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17f9/4759252/24ce8074d5c1/fpsyg-07-00197-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17f9/4759252/2567c311f15c/fpsyg-07-00197-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17f9/4759252/24ce8074d5c1/fpsyg-07-00197-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17f9/4759252/2567c311f15c/fpsyg-07-00197-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17f9/4759252/24ce8074d5c1/fpsyg-07-00197-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Standing in Your Peer's Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity.设身处地为同伴着想会损害你的成就:风险态度和冲动性方面的自我与他人差异。
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 19;7:197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00197. eCollection 2016.
2
Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.从专家的角度出发能否消除人类决策中的偏差?以风险和延迟收益为例。
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 4;5:989. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989. eCollection 2014.
3
Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see.从他们的角度看问题:他人所见的快速且无意识计算的证据。
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Oct;36(5):1255-66. doi: 10.1037/a0018729.
4
The peer's point of view: Observing a peer performing an action enhances third-person perspective in adolescents.同伴的视角:观察同伴执行某一行为会增强青少年的第三人称视角。
J Adolesc. 2017 Apr;56:84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.001. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
5
Developmental changes and individual differences in risk and perspective taking in adolescence.青少年时期风险认知与观点采择的发展变化及个体差异。
Dev Psychopathol. 2008 Fall;20(4):1213-29. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000588.
6
Inferring Perspective Versus Getting Perspective: Underestimating the Value of Being in Another Person's Shoes.推断视角与获得视角:低估设身处地的价值。
Psychol Sci. 2017 Apr;28(4):482-493. doi: 10.1177/0956797616687124. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
7
The expert consensus guideline series. Optimizing pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders. Introduction: methods, commentary, and summary.专家共识指南系列。优化精神障碍的药物治疗。引言:方法、评论与总结。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64 Suppl 12:5-19.
8
To Take a Risk or Not? The Effect of Perceived Scarcity on Risky Choices.冒险与否?感知稀缺对风险选择的影响。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Sep 6;13(9):743. doi: 10.3390/bs13090743.
9
[Decisions in conditional situation and theory of mind in schizotypy].[条件情境下的决策与分裂型人格障碍中的心理理论]
Encephale. 2008 Apr;34(2):116-22. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2007.05.003. Epub 2007 Sep 6.
10
Thinking about others and the future: Neural correlates of perspective taking relate to preferences for delayed rewards.思考他人与未来:观点采择的神经关联与对延迟奖励的偏好有关。
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2018 Feb;18(1):35-42. doi: 10.3758/s13415-017-0550-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Are my Peers Impulsive? Normative Perceptions of Impulsivity and Associations with Personal Impulsivity and Alcohol Use Outcomes.我的同龄人冲动吗?冲动性的规范性认知及其与个人冲动性和酒精使用结果的关联。
J Subst Use. 2024 Sep 16. doi: 10.1080/14659891.2024.2403061.

本文引用的文献

1
Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.从专家的角度出发能否消除人类决策中的偏差?以风险和延迟收益为例。
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 4;5:989. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989. eCollection 2014.
2
Regional brain changes occurring during disobedience to "experts" in financial decision-making.在金融决策中违抗“专家”时发生的局部脑区变化。
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 24;9(1):e87321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087321. eCollection 2014.
3
Statistical equivalence and test-retest reliability of delay and probability discounting using real and hypothetical rewards.
使用真实和虚拟奖励时延迟和概率折扣的统计等效性及重测信度
Behav Processes. 2013 Nov;100:116-22. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.07.019. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
4
The role of empathy in choosing rewards from another's perspective.共情在从他人角度选择奖励中的作用。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 May 23;7:174. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00174. eCollection 2013.
5
Decisions for others become less impulsive the further away they are on the family tree.离家族树越远,为他人做决定就越不冲动。
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49479. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049479. Epub 2012 Nov 28.
6
Patients' perceptions of physicians' epistemic authority when recommending flu inoculation.患者对医生推荐流感疫苗时的认知权威的看法。
Health Psychol. 2013 Jun;32(6):706-9. doi: 10.1037/a0027356. Epub 2012 Feb 20.
7
Discounting of hypothetical and potentially real outcomes in nicotine-dependent and nondependent samples.尼古丁依赖和不依赖样本中假设和潜在真实结果的折扣。
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011 Aug;19(4):263-74. doi: 10.1037/a0024141.
8
Nurse or physician: whose recommendation influences the decision to take genetic tests more?护士还是医生:谁的推荐更能影响接受基因检测的决定?
J Adv Nurs. 2010 Apr;66(4):806-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05239.x.
9
An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.一种识别非系统性延迟折扣数据的算法。
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Jun;16(3):264-74. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264.
10
The costly pursuit of self-esteem.对自尊的代价高昂的追求。
Psychol Bull. 2004 May;130(3):392-414. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392.