信息框架及个体情绪诱发对大学生捐助行为的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 旨在探讨捐助情境下的框架效应和不同情绪诱发对大学生捐助行为的影响。实验一采用风险决策范式验证在捐助情境下框架效应的存在，实验二采用情绪诱发范式和模拟情境实验探讨不同情绪诱发与信息框架的交互作用。结果：（1）捐助情境下，框架效应显著。（2）消极信息框架下，个体在悲伤情绪下比在快乐情绪下对捐款的愉悦度更好；积极信息框架下，个体在悲伤情绪下与快乐情绪无差异。（3）积极信息框架下，个体倾向于捐时间而不是捐款，消极信息框架下无差异。

关键词: 情绪, 框架效应, 信息框架, 捐助行为, 调节匹配理论

Abstract: The present study aimed to explore the effect of information framework in the context of donation and different emotion elicitations on college student's donation behavior. In experiment 1, risky decision-making paradigm was applied to verify the existence of framing effect in the situation of donation. In experiment 2, emotion elicitation paradigm and simulated situation experiment were adopted to probe into the interaction effect between elicitation of different emotions and information framework. Results showed that:1) under the circumstance of donation, the effect of framing was significant. 2) Under the framework of negative information, individuals in sadness tended to have more enjoyment than those in happiness; under the framework of positive information, there was no difference between the individual's happiness and sadness. 3) Under the framework of positive information, individuals were inclined to donate time rather than money, while there was no difference under the framework of negative information.

Key words: emotion, framing effect, information framework, donation behavior, regulation fit theory

中图分类号:

B844

张聚媛, 许潇, 刘勤学. 信息框架及个体情绪诱发对大学生捐助行为的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 360-367.

ZHANG Juyuan, XU Xiao, LIU Qinxue. The Effect of Information Framework and Individual Emotion Elicitation on College Student's Donation Behavior[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(3): 360-367.

参考文献

陈剑梅, 傅琦. (2016). 劝捐策略和框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响. 心理与行为研究, 14(3), 377-383, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2016.03.014
陈武英, 刘连启. (2016). 情境对共情的影响. 心理科学进展, 24(1), 91-100
戴鑫, 周文容, 曾一帆. (2015). 广告信息框架与信息目标对受众亲社会行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 12(6), 880-887, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2015.06.013
丁凤琴, 纳雯. (2015). 真实急病情境下共情对大学生慈善捐助的影响:有调节的中介效应. 心理发展与教育, 31(6), 694-702
杜秀芳, 王颖霞, 赵树强. (2010). 框架效应研究30年的变迁. 济南大学学报(社会科学版), 20(3), 71-74, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-3842.2010.03.016
段锦云, 朱月龙, 陈婧. (2013). 心理距离对风险决策框架效应的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1404-1407
何宁, 朱云莉. (2016). 自爱与他爱:自恋、共情与内隐利他的关系. 心理学报, 48(2), 199-210
靳霄. (2009). 情绪视频材料的量化评定研究(硕士学位论文). 第二军医大学.
寇彧, 唐玲玲. (2004). 心境对亲社会行为的影响. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (5), 44-49, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0209.2004.05.007
李颖, 罗涤. (2013). 大学生合作型亲社会行为的积极情绪体验研究. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 19(4), 177-182
林志扬, 肖前, 周志强. (2014). 道德倾向与慈善捐赠行为关系实证研究——基于道德认同的调节作用. 外国经济与管理, 36(6), 15-23,31
刘凤芹, 卢玮静. (2013). 社会经济地位对慈善捐款行为的影响. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (3), 113-120
刘明威. (2013). 不同框架效应及情绪下大学生保护性价值观对利他行为意向的影响(硕士学位论文). 沈阳师范大学.
卢现祥, 李晓敏. (2010). 企业捐赠、社会责任与经济动机——基于"5.12地震"后世界500强公司捐赠情况的实证研究. 经济纵横, (6), 69-74
施卓敏, 李璐璐, 吴路芳. (2013). "爱礼品"还是"要包邮":哪种促销方式更吸引你? 影响网上促销框架和网络购买意愿关系的调节变量研究. 营销科学学报, 9(1), 105-117
王菁, 程博, 孙元欣. (2014). 期望绩效反馈效果对企业研发和慈善捐赠行为的影响. 管理世界, (8), 115-133
王晓利. (2016). 情绪和情绪调节对风险决策的影响及其神经基础. 心理技术与应用, 4(2), 97-101
王振, 苑成梅, 黄佳, 李则挚, 陈珏, 张海音, … 肖泽萍. (2011). 贝克抑郁量表第2版中文版在抑郁症患者中的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 25(6), 476-480, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2011.06.014
谢晔, 周军. (2012). 情绪和框架效应对个体捐赠决策影响的实验研究. 心理科学, 35(4), 951-956
徐麟. (2005). 中国慈善事业发展研究. 北京:中国社会出版社.
徐鹏飞, 黄宇霞, 罗跃嘉. (2010). 中国情绪影像材料库的初步编制和评定. 中国心理卫生杂志, 24(7), 551-554, 561, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2010.07.017
于会会, 徐富明, 黄宝珍, 文桂婵, 王岚. (2012). 框架效应中的个体差异. 心理科学进展, 20(6), 894-901
袁勇贵, 沈鑫华, 张向荣, 吴爱勤, 孙厚纯, 张宁, … 李海林. (2003). 多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS-20)的信度和效度研究. 四川精神卫生, 16(1), 25-27, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1007-3256.2003.01.009
Abhyankar, P., O'Connor, D. B., & Lawton, R. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination:Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13(1), 1-16.
Appelt, K. C., Zou, X., Arora, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Regulatory fit in negotiation:Effects of "Prevention-Buyer" and "Promotion-Seller" fit. Social Cognition, 27(3), 365-384, doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.3.365.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. R. (1995). Empathy and the collective good:Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68(4), 619-631.
Bazerman, M. (2006). Judgment in management decision making (6th ed.). New York:Wiley.
Bless, H., Schwarz, N., & Wieland, R. (1996). Mood and the impact of category membership and individuating information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 935-959, doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992.
Cavanaugh, L. A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (2015). Feeling love and doing more for distant others:Specific positive emotions differentially affect prosocial consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 657-673, doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0219.
Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion:Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 444-463, doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x.
Chatterjee, P., Rose, R. L., & Sinha J. (2013). Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 24, 109-118, doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9215-0.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785-791, doi:10.1038/nature02043.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York, NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing:Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 1-28, doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1301_01.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision:Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel:The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 926-937, doi:10.1177/0146167204264334.
Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking:When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 194-202, doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4.
Kim, N. (2014). Advertising strategies for charities:Promoting consumers' donation of time versus money. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 707-724, doi:10.2501/IJA-33-4-707-724.
Kuo, F. Y., Hsu, C. W., & Day, R. F. (2009). An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under Framing-an application of the eye-tracking technology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal:A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188, doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367, doi:10.1177/002224379002700310.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:Harper & Row.
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298, doi:10.1038/nature04131.
Reed, A., Ⅱ, Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71, 178-193, doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.1.178.
Reed, A., Kay, A., Finnel, S., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2016). I don't want the money, I just want your time:How moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to prosocial causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 435-457, doi:10.1037/pspp0000058.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1991). Mood and helping:Mood as a motivator of helping and helping as a regulator of mood. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 214-237). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Focusing on followers:The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 457-468, doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.009.
Tanner, C., Medin, D. L., & Iliev, R. (2008). Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects:When principles are more important than consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 757-769, doi:10.1002/ejsp.v38:5.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458, doi:10.1126/science.7455683.
Zhao, G. Z., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents' response to anti-smoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 671-687, doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.4.671.

[1]	马丽云, 莫文. 自我损耗下积极情绪对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 684-691.
[2]	刘建榕, 谢林君, 郑琳. 社会性发展迟滞大学生的情绪韵律识别特点[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 714-720.
[3]	鲍旭辉, 黄杰, 李娜, 李健军, 李亚红. 主动性人格对学习投入的影响：领悟社会支持和积极情绪的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 508-514.
[4]	李娇娇, 刘晓冰, 裴丹丹, 徐碧波, 尹锡杨. 情绪智力对大学生恶意创造力的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[5]	李永占. 情绪智力在身体自尊与进食障碍倾向间的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 570-576.
[6]	刘芳, 霍瑞, 韩铖铖, 王美沂, 杨海波. 执行功能对个体情绪调节策略使用倾向和调节效果的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 382-389.
[7]	郭丰波, 黄佳珊, 刘腾飞, 谷莉. 社会责任感调节群际替代性排斥中旁观者第三方惩罚[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 397-403.
[8]	李鹏, 张志超, 杨洋, 杨佳奇, 李洪玉. 工作压力对中小学教师职业倦怠的影响：情绪劳动和工作满意度的链式中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 412-418.
[9]	周爱保, 赵海燕, 夏瑞雪, 袁月, 贾婷婷, 谢珮. 不同语义水平下参照方式、情绪效价和特质评价对记忆的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 145-152.
[10]	赵思怡, 李莹, 王悦. 情绪效价−空间动作隐喻联结对成人和儿童外语情绪词学习的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 153-159.
[11]	徐慧, 李美佳, 彭华茂. 眼睛注视线索对经济领域风险决策的影响：基于框架效应范式[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 37-44.
[12]	任亚萍, 孙岩, 赵雪松. 不同任务框架下自我损耗对自我-他人风险决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 750-756.
[13]	王军利, 文彦茹, 林艺, 侯莉敏. 学前儿童情绪表达规则认知发展特征及其影响因素：一项追踪研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 764-770.
[14]	陈兰双, 宋惠敏, 董静, 赵欢, 张镇. 老年大学学员组织融入度和抑郁症状的关系及其机制探索[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 706-713.
[15]	杨伟平, 杨项富, 徐建萍. 跨通道视听觉情绪信息对婴儿图式效应的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 447-453.