不同人际关系取向下的权力对利他行为的影响

心理与行为研究 ›› 2015, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (4): 516-520.

不同人际关系取向下的权力对利他行为的影响

王垚, 李小平

南京师范大学心理学院，南京 210097

收稿日期:2014-02-28 出版日期:2015-07-20 发布日期:2015-07-30
通讯作者: 李小平
基金资助:
(10SHB003)。

The Effects of Power on Altruistic Behavior: Under Different Relationship Orientation

Wang Yao, Li Xiaoping

School of Psychology，Nanjing normal university，Nanjing 210097

Received:2014-02-28 Online:2015-07-20 Published:2015-07-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 考察了在独裁者博弈中，权力感和人际关系取向对利他行为的影响。从调查网站征集了180名被试，随机分为两组，首先对被试进行了人际关系取向的调查，再对两组被试分别启动高、低权力感，最后让被试在独裁者博弈中做出利益分配的决策，被试分给搭档的数额可以反映其利他行为的程度。结果显示，低权力组给出数额更多，且只有低权力的共享被试给出数额更多。因此得出结论，只有共享取向的人在低权力情境才会更利他。

关键词: 利他行为, 权力感, 人际关系取向, 共享取向, 交易取向。

Abstract: The present study examines the impact of power and relationship orientation on altruistic behavior in a dictator game(DG)situation. 180 subjects(91 females)from two survey websites were recruited to participate in the present study. All participants fulfilled first the scale of relationship orientation, then they were randomly assigned to the low-power and high-power prime conditions. After the power priming procedure, all participants completed a DG in which they were asked to make a decision about a benefit distribution, from which the degree of altruistic behavior were measured. The results indicated that low-power group gave more money in DG, however, only for those persons who were in low-power condition and adopted communal orientation were more likely to give more money than the other subjects in low-power group. This result suggests that people with the communal relationship orientation and in low-power condition will exhibit more altruistic behavior.

Key words: altruistic behavior, power, relationship orientation, communal relationship orientation, exchange relationship orientation.

中图分类号:

B849

王垚, 李小平. 不同人际关系取向下的权力对利他行为的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(4): 516-520.

Wang Yao, Li Xiaoping. The Effects of Power on Altruistic Behavior: Under Different Relationship Orientation[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(4): 516-520.

参考文献

[1] 皇甫刚, 朱莉琪, 戴航, 张岗英.(2007). 影响博弈结果的方法效应研究. 心理与行为研究, 5(4), 305-308.
[2] 韦庆旺, 郑全全.(2008). 权力对谈判的影响研究综述. 人类工效学, 14, 54-56.
[3] 俞国良, 韦庆旺.(2009). 权力的社会认知研究述评. 心理科学进展, 17(6), 1336-1343.
[4] Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D.(2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European. Journal of Social Psycholohy, 36, 511-536.
[5] Ben-Ner, A., Kramer, A., & Levy, O.(2008). Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1775-1784.
[6] Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P.(2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European. Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497-509.
[7] Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A.(2001). Relationship orientation as moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 183-187.
[8] Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R.(1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and what it is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691.
[9] Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R.(2011). A theory of communal (and exchange)relationships. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglangki & E. T. Higgms(Eds.). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology(pp.232-247). Las Angeles, CA: Sage.
[10] Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S.(1987). Recipient′s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 93-103.
[11] Clark, M. S., Taraban, C., Ho, J., & Wesner, K.(1989). A measure of exchange orientation. Unpublished manuscript. Carnegie Mellon.
[12] DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L.(2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681-689.
[13] Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H, & Magee, J. C.(2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
[14] Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H.(2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.
[15] Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C.(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
[16] Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R.(2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of Management Review, 30, 799-822.
[17] Mills, J. R., & Clark, M. S.(1994). Communal and exchange relationships: controversies and research. In R. Erber & Robin Gilmour(Eds.). Theoretical Frameworks for Personal Relationships(pp.29-42). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
[18] Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cté, S., Cheng, B. H., Keltner, D.(2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771-784.
[19] Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D.(2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
[20] Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y.(2006). You focus on the forest when you′re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578-596.
[21] Van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Lo¨we, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D.(2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315-1322.