心理距离概念水平上的趋利避害相容效应

心理与行为研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (4): 488-495.

心理距离概念水平上的趋利避害相容效应

吴三美^1,2, 王敬欣^1,3,4, 何先友⁵, 田良苏⁵, 赵雪汝⁶, 陈广耀⁷

1. 天津师范大学心理学部, 天津 300387;
2. 广东农工商职业技术学院智能工程学院, 广州 510507;
3. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300387;
4. 国民心理健康评估与促进协同创新中心, 天津 300387;
5. 华南师范大学心理学院, 广州 510631;
6. 北京教育学院基础教育人才研究院, 北京 100120;
7. 暨南大学新闻与传播学院, 广州 510632

收稿日期:2018-03-23 出版日期:2019-07-20 发布日期:2019-08-08
通讯作者: 王敬欣
基金资助:
广东省自然科学基金博士科研启动项目（2017A030310536）

The Compatibility Effect of Approaching the Positive and Avoiding the Negative at the Conceptual Level of Psychological Distance

WU Sanmei^1,2, WANG Jingxin^1,3,4, HE Xianyou⁵, TIAN Liangsu⁵, ZHAO Xueru⁶, CHEN Guangyao⁷

1. Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. School of Intelligent Engineering, Guangdong AIB Polytechnic College, Guangzhou 510507;
3. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
4. Center of Collaborative Innovation for Assessment and Promotion of Mental Health, Tianjin 300387;
5. School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631;
6. Research Institute of Basic Education Professions, Beijing Institute of Education, Beijing 100120;
7. Journalism and Communication College, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632

Received:2018-03-23 Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-08-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究采用内隐联想测验范式，通过三个实验分别从心理距离的空间、时间、社会性距离三个维度，探讨是否存在心理距离概念水平上的趋利避害相容效应。实验1的结果显示在相容条件下（即积极词和近空间距离词组合、消极词和远的空间距离词组合）被试的反应时显著小于不相容条件（即积极词和远空间距离词的组合、消极词与近空间距离词的组合），说明被试更容易将积极概念与近距离概念相联系，将消极概念与远距离概念相联系，在心理距离空间维度上存在概念水平的趋利避害相容效应。实验2和实验3分别从心理距离的时间维度和社会性维度进一步探讨该效应，得到了与实验1相一致的结果。总的结果表明，在心理距离概念水平上存在趋利避害相容效应，用心理距离的变化可以作为衡量趋避行为的标准。

关键词: 趋利避害, 心理距离, 内隐联想测验

Abstract: Three experiments were conducted to explore the compatibility effect of approaching the positive and avoiding the negative at the conceptual level of psychological distance by using the Implicit Association Test. In Experiment 1, the results showed that the reaction times were shorter in the congruent condition (pairings of positive words with "spatial proximity" words and negative words with "spatial distance" words) than in the incongruent conditions. It suggests that the participants tend to associate positive concept with proximal concepts and negative concept with distant concepts; and the compatibility effect of approaching the positive and avoiding the negative exists at the conceptual level of spatial distance. In Experiment 2 and Experiment 3, we explored the compatibility effect at the conceptual level of temporal distance and social distance. The results were consistent with Experiment 1. Based on these findings, we argue that the compatibility effect exists at the conceptual level of psychological distance. And it is sugessted that "psychological distance" change could be used as a criterion to define approach-avoidance behaviors.

Key words: approaching the positive and avoiding the negative, psychological distance, the Implicit Association Test

中图分类号:

B842

吴三美, 王敬欣, 何先友, 田良苏, 赵雪汝, 陈广耀. 心理距离概念水平上的趋利避害相容效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 488-495.

WU Sanmei, WANG Jingxin, HE Xianyou, TIAN Liangsu, ZHAO Xueru, CHEN Guangyao. The Compatibility Effect of Approaching the Positive and Avoiding the Negative at the Conceptual Level of Psychological Distance[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(4): 488-495.

参考文献

耿晓伟, 郑全全. (2005). 中国文化中自尊结构的内隐社会认知研究. 心理科学, 28(2), 379-382, doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2005.02.029
马惠霞, 宋英杰, 刘瑞凝, 朱雅丽, 杨琼, 郝胤庭. (2015). 情绪的动机维度对趋避行为的影响. 心理科学, 39(5), 1026-1032
王一牛, 周立明, 罗跃嘉. (2008). 汉语情感词系统的初步编制及评定. 中国心理卫生杂志, 22(8), 608-612, doi:10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2008.08.014
侠牧. (2015). 表情识别中的效价和动机维度:趋利避害及效价优先效应(博士学位论文). 西南大学, 重庆.
殷融, 曲方炳, 叶浩生. (2012). 具身概念表征的研究及理论述评. 心理科学进展, 20(9), 1372-1381
张晓雯, 禤宇明, 傅小兰. (2012). 情绪效价对趋避反应的作用. 心理科学进展, 20(7), 1023-1030
郑健, 刘力, 史佳鑫, 赵显, 黄桢炜. (2013). 趋利避害相容效应的定义、理论与研究范式. 心理科学进展, 21(9), 1686-1695
郑皓元, 叶浩生, 苏得权. (2017). 有关具身认知的三种理论模型. 心理学探新, 37(3), 195-199
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level:Evidence from an Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 135(4), 609-622, doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.609.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Algom, D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance:Evidence from a Stroop Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 136(4), 610-622, doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.610.
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation:Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215-224, doi:10.1177/0146167299025002007.
De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F., & Hermans, D. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon effect. Cognition and Emotion, 15(2), 189-206, doi:10.1080/02699930125883.
Eder, A. B., & Rothermund, K. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 137(2), 262-281, doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.262.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test:I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.
Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K. F., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the "here":The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 845-856, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.845.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC):A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-937, doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103.
Krieglmeyer, R., & Deutsch, R. (2010). Comparing measures of approach-avoidance behaviour:The manikin task vs two versions of the joystick task. Cognition and Emotion, 24(5), 810-828.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201-1205, doi:10.1126/science.1161958.
Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16(1), 6-10, doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00772.x.
Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's "up" with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 699-710, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.699.
Paladino, M. P., & Castelli, L. (2008). On the immediate consequences of intergroup categorization:Activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 755-768, doi:10.1177/0146167208315155.
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 105-120, doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001.
Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 239-245, doi:10.1037/h0047274.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220-247, doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95, doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463, doi:10.1037/a0018963.
van Dantzig, S., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2009). Unconstraining theories of embodied cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 345-351, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.001.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance:The attention-grabbing power of approach-and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1024-1037, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1024.

[1]	李开云, 王思杰, 杨蕙菁, 毕艳, 张文君, 林丰勋. “己之所欲”还是“成人之美”？解释水平视角下个体赠送-接受礼物的偏好不对称性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 136-144.
[2]	张娟, 张大均. 大学生心理素质水平与正性负性情绪的外显和内隐相关[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(1): 91-96.
[3]	任玉冰, 杜秀芳. 心理距离与后果严重性对人身安全决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 327-334.
[4]	王汉林, 莫雷. “动作-评价”效应：动作与认知的交互作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(5): 626-632.
[5]	侯娟, 黄佳妮, 方晓义. 个体理想伴侣偏好的内隐—外显性差异研究^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(4): 551-561.
[6]	徐钟庚，席贻莹，马婷张锋. 健全人对不同能力残疾人的刻板印象：基于SCM模型的研究^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(1): 106-113.
[7]	王阳, 牟兵兵, 宛小昂. 空间距离与产品属性对消费者选择偏好的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(4): 534-540.
[8]	王阳, 牟兵兵, 宛小昂. 空间距离与产品属性对消费者选择偏好的影响^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2014, 12(6): 840-846.
[9]	段锦云，王雪鹏，古晓花. 心理距离对后悔的影响^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2014, 12(5): 671-674.
[10]	陈进, 梁宁建, 杨福义, 杨文圣. 多因素特质内隐联想测验（MFT-IAT）在多维度自我概念内隐测量中的应用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2013, 11(2): 184-189.
[11]	赵莹；吕勇；吴国来. [J]. , 2009, 7(1): 67-70.
[12]	张镇,李幼穗. 青少年内隐与外显自尊的比较研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2005, 3(3): 219-224.