• 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

原型匹配:一种社会决策策略。

Prototype matching: a strategy for social decision making.

作者信息

Niedenthal P M, Cantor N, Kihlstrom J F

出版信息

J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985 Mar;48(3):575-84. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.575.

DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.575
PMID:3989662
Abstract

College students responded to a series of questionnaires while they were in the process of selecting housing from a choice of seven available options for the coming fall. Questionnaires concerned their self-concepts, their housing prototypes, their preferences in housing, and their goals in housing selection. Overall analyses of the self-to-prototype matching strategy suggest that most students indeed prefer the type of housing for which their prototype of the "representative" resident most closely matches their self-perceptions. More important, we obtained individual differences in attention to self-fit in situations. Of individuals who reported that they had interpersonal goals in the housing selection task, those who reported that many personality characteristics (both positive and negative) were untrue of self were more systematic in their use of the self-to-prototype matching rule, this was also true of low self-monitors. Neither pattern of individual differences obtained for students with practical goals in the housing decision.

摘要

大学生在为即将到来的秋季从七个可选住房选项中挑选住房的过程中,对一系列问卷做出了回应。问卷涉及他们的自我概念、住房原型、住房偏好以及住房选择目标。对自我与原型匹配策略的总体分析表明,大多数学生确实更喜欢那种他们心目中“典型”居民的原型与自我认知最紧密匹配的住房类型。更重要的是,我们发现了在不同情境下对自我契合度关注的个体差异。在那些表示在住房选择任务中有人际目标的个体中,那些报告许多个性特征(包括积极和消极的)与自己不符的人在使用自我与原型匹配规则时更具系统性,低自我监控者也是如此。在住房决策中有实际目标的学生未表现出这两种个体差异模式。

相似文献

1
Prototype matching: a strategy for social decision making.原型匹配:一种社会决策策略。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985 Mar;48(3):575-84. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.575.
2
The role of achievement goal orientations in students' perceptions of and preferences for classroom environment.成就目标导向在学生对课堂环境的认知及偏好中的作用。
Br J Educ Psychol. 2008 Jun;78(Pt 2):291-312. doi: 10.1348/000709907X205272. Epub 2007 Apr 30.
3
School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-perceptions, and activity choices.学校和家庭对儿童兴趣、自我认知及活动选择个体发展的影响。
Nebr Symp Motiv. 1992;40:145-208.
4
"Who am I? Why am I here?": self-esteem, self-clarity, and prototype matching.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Oct;65(4):769-79. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.4.769.
5
Use of the self-concept in forming preferences by French students of different levels of academic achievement.不同学业成绩水平的法国学生在形成偏好时对自我概念的运用。
J Soc Psychol. 2000 Feb;140(1):119-31. doi: 10.1080/00224540009600450.
6
Global perceptions of the fit between person and work environment (P-E fit): development and initial validation of a new measure.全球对个人与工作环境匹配度(P-E匹配)的认知:一种新测量方法的开发与初步验证
Psychol Rep. 2009 Dec;105(3 Pt 2):1181-95. doi: 10.2466/PR0.105.F.1181-1195.
7
Moderating the interaction between procedural justice and decision frame: the counterbalancing effect of personality traits.调节程序公正与决策框架之间的相互作用:人格特质的平衡效应。
J Psychol. 2013 Mar-Apr;147(2):125-51. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2012.678412.
8
Goals, styles, and decisions: changes and interactions during the first year of college.
Am J Psychol. 2014 Fall;127(3):383-96. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.3.0383.
9
Social sensitivity in adolescents and adults with learning disabilities.学习障碍青少年和成年人的社会敏感性。
Adolescence. 1992 Winter;27(108):977-88.
10
Influence of social motivation, self-perception of social efficacy and normative adjustment in the peer setting.同伴环境中社会动机、社会效能自我认知及规范调整的影响
Psicothema. 2016;28(1):32-9. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.135.

引用本文的文献

1
The Brilliance-Belonging Model: How Cultural Beliefs About Intellectual Ability Undermine Educational Equity.卓越-归属模型:关于智力能力的文化信念如何损害教育公平。
Educ Psychol Rev. 2025;37(3):64. doi: 10.1007/s10648-025-10034-2. Epub 2025 Jun 25.
2
Prototypes of Victims of Workplace Harassment.职场骚扰受害者的原型。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2025 Oct;51(10):1830-1846. doi: 10.1177/01461672241235388. Epub 2024 Mar 16.
3
Mobility, independent agency, and cosmopolitan settlement: Evidence from Chinese senior undergraduates.
流动性、自主能动性与国际化定居:来自中国大龄本科生的证据
Front Psychol. 2022 Dec 16;13:1057974. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1057974. eCollection 2022.
4
What is the Image of the "Typical Cancer Patient"? The View of Physicians.“典型癌症患者”的形象是什么?医生的看法。
Am J Mens Health. 2021 Mar-Apr;15(2):1557988320988480. doi: 10.1177/1557988320988480.
5
Do Only White or Asian Males Belong in Genius Organizations? How Academic Organizations' Fixed Theories of Excellence Help or Hinder Different Student Groups' Sense of Belonging.只有白人或亚洲男性才能加入天才组织吗?学术组织关于卓越的固定理论如何帮助或阻碍不同学生群体的归属感。
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 12;12:631142. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631142. eCollection 2021.
6
Zero-Sum Construal of Workplace Success Promotes Initial Work Role Behavior by Activating Prevention Focus: Evidence From Chinese College and University Graduates.
Front Psychol. 2020 Jun 30;11:1191. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01191. eCollection 2020.
7
Social or Economic Goals? The Professional Goal Orientation of Students Enrolled in STEM and Non-STEM Majors in University.社会目标还是经济目标?大学理工科和非理工科专业学生的职业目标导向
Front Psychol. 2019 Sep 13;10:2065. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02065. eCollection 2019.
8
Do Gender Differences in Perceived Prototypical Computer Scientists and Engineers Contribute to Gender Gaps in Computer Science and Engineering?对计算机科学家和工程师的典型认知中的性别差异会导致计算机科学与工程领域的性别差距吗?
Sex Roles. 2018;78(1):40-51. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0763-x. Epub 2017 Apr 7.
9
Cosmopolitan cities: the frontier in the twenty-first century?国际化大都市:21世纪的前沿阵地?
Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 14;6:1459. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01459. eCollection 2015.
10
This examined life: the upside of self-knowledge for interpersonal relationships.审视人生:自我认知对人际关系的积极影响。
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 31;8(7):e69605. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069605. Print 2013.