“谈钱伤感情”？社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响

心理与行为研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (3): 368-376,421.

“谈钱伤感情”？社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响

钟毅平, 李梅, 李琎, 占友龙

湖南师范大学教育科学学院, 认知与人类行为湖南省重点实验室, 长沙 410081

收稿日期:2018-02-06 出版日期:2019-05-20 发布日期:2019-06-10
通讯作者: 钟毅平,E-mail:ypzhong@hunnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
中国自然科学基金面上项目（31671134），中国自然科学基金青年项目（31500883），湖南省自科基金面上项目（2015JJ2101，2015JJ2097）、中国科学院心理健康重点实验室开放课题（KLMH2014K04）、湖南省社会科学基金青年项目（15YBA264）、湖南省教育科学“十二五”规划课题（XJK0150XL002）、湖南省教育厅科学研究优秀青年项目（15B152）、中国博士后科学基金一般项目（2014M561086）

“Talking About Money Hurts Feelings”? The Influence of Sociality Mental Modes on Charitable Donation

ZHONG Yiping, LI Mei, LI Jin, ZHAN Youlong

Hunan Key Laboratory of Cognition and Human Behavior and Department of Educational Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China

Received:2018-02-06 Online:2019-05-20 Published:2019-06-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 人们通常以不同的社交心理模式进行相处，即：市场模式和公共模式。本研究两个实验通过图片启动考察社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响。实验一探讨社交心理模式和成本对慈善捐赠的影响。结果发现在中、低成本下，慈善捐赠不受社交心理模式的影响；而在高成本下，市场模式组的捐赠低于公共模式组和控制组，但公共模式组与控制组之间差异不显著。实验二探讨社交心理模式和捐赠关系对慈善捐赠的影响。结果发现在公共模式组和控制组，被试对高、中、低自我相关的慈善机构的捐赠逐步递减，且两两差异显著；而市场模式组，被试对高自我相关的慈善机构的捐赠显著大于中、低自我相关的慈善机构，但中、低自我相关的慈善机构的差异不显著。这些结果表明，慈善捐赠受到社交心理模式的影响。以市场模式为导向的个体倾向于成本-收益的计算，削弱其亲社会行为动机，但这种影响会受到成本的调节；且市场模式主导下的个体对社会关系的感知更加疏远。

关键词: 社交心理模式, 成本, 自我相关性, 慈善捐赠

Abstract: People often get along with others in different sociality mental modes——communal mode and market mode. Picture prime is used to investigate whether sociality mental modes can affect the charitable donation. In Experiment 1, we explore the effects of sociality mental modes and the costs on charitable donation. The results show that charitable donation is not affected by sociality mental modes in the low-cost and the medium-cost condition. In the high-cost condition, market mode is lower than communal mode and control group. However, there is no difference between communal mode and control group. In Experiment 2, we explore the effects of sociality mental modes and donor relationship on charitable donation. The results show that the donation is decreased progressively in high self-related charities, middle self-related charities and low self-related charities in the communal mode and control group. However, in the market mode, the donation is the highest in high self-related charities. There is little difference between middle self-related charities and low self-related charities. These results reveal that sociality mental modes impact charitable donation. People in market mode are inclined to focus on the personal costs and benefits, and weaken the individual's pro-social behavior motivation. But cost can moderate the effects of sociality mental modes on charitable donation. In the market model, people in market mode perception of social relations are more alienated.

Key words: sociality mental modes, cost, self-relevance, charitable donation

中图分类号:

B842.1

钟毅平, 李梅, 李琎, 占友龙. “谈钱伤感情”？社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 368-376,421.

ZHONG Yiping, LI Mei, LI Jin, ZHAN Youlong. “Talking About Money Hurts Feelings”? The Influence of Sociality Mental Modes on Charitable Donation[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(3): 368-376,421.

参考文献

?定险峰, 刘华山. (2011). 个体不幸情境下的慈善捐赠-共情的中介效应. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(6), 759-762
定险峰, 易晓明. (2011). 群体灾难下的慈善捐赠-共情的中介效应. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(3), 363-366
葛岩, 秦裕林. (2012). 善行的边界:社会与市场规范冲突中的公益选择——基于上海交通大学学生的研究. 中国社会科学, (8), 72-88
张雪姣, 刘聪慧. (2017). 亲社会行为中的"眼睛效应". 心理科学进展, 25(3), 475-485
张振, 张帆, 原胜, 郭丰波, 王益文. (2015). 社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析. 心理与行为研究, 13(3), 404-409
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
Carlson, R. W., Aknin, L. B., & Liotti, M. (2016). When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1121-1129.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 29-35.
Chatterjee, P., Rose, R. L., & Sinha, J. (2013). RETRACTED ARTICLE:Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 24(2), 109-118.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships:What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684-691.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). Do donors care about subsidy type? An experimental study. Research in Experimental Economics, 11(6), 157-175.
Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance:Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197-211.
Eisenberg, N., & Shell, R. (1986). Prosocial moral judgment and behavior in children:The mediating role of cost. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 426-433.
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it:The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(6), 581-604.
Fathi, M., Bateson, M., & Nettle, D. (2014). Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 878-887.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality:Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
Gasiorowska, A., Chaplin, L. N., Zaleskiewicz, T., Wygrab, S., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Money cues increase agency and decrease prosociality among children:Early signs of market-mode behaviors. Psychological Science, 27(3), 331-344.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice:Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179-187.
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment:A tale of two markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787-793.
Li, J., Zhan, Y. L., Fan, W., Liu, L., Li, M., Sun, Y., & Zhong, Y. P. (2018). Sociality mental modes modulate the processing of advice-giving:An event-related potentials study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 42.
Mogilner, C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness:Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348-1354.
Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(42), 15623-15628.
Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game:It's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40.
Oda, R., & Ichihashi, R. (2016). The watching eyes effect on charitable donation is boosted by fewer people in the vicinity. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 7(2), 9-12.
Pfeffer, J., & DeVoe, S. E. (2009). Economic evaluation:The effect of money and economics on attitudes about volunteering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 500-508.
Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2012). A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 279(1742), 3556-3564.
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427-430.
Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 358-367.
Savani, K., Mead, N. L., Stillman, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). No match for money:Even in intimate relationships and collectivistic cultures, reminders of money weaken sociomoral responses. Self and Identity, 15(3), 342-355.
Sparks, A., & Barclay, P. (2013). Eye images increase generosity, but not for long:The limited effect of a false cue. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34(5), 317-322.
van Hoorn, J., van Dijk, E., Güroğlu, B., & Crone, E. A. (2016). Neural correlates of prosocial peer influence on public goods game donations during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(6), 923-933.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154-1156.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.

[1]	赵赛男, 李琳, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 汉语阅读中高限制性语境对不可预测词加工的影响：眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[2]	刘明矾, 江莹, 张惠, 武厚, 翁美绦. 抑郁个体的负性信息工作记忆的操纵能力及其对沉思的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 758-762.
[3]	李丹；黄蔷薇；丁雪辰. 2-8年级儿童的责任心发展[J]. , 2012, 10(5): 347-354.