决策角色对风险决策的影响:时间距离的调节作用
The Influence of Decision Role on Risk Decision-Making: The Moderating Role of Temporal Distance
摘要: 风险决策是日常生活中不可或缺的部分,人们不仅为自己决策,也经常为他人决策。本研究基于解释水平理论,考察决策角色(自己vs.亲密朋友)对风险决策的影响,以及时间距离(明天vs.一年后)的调节作用。采用2 (决策角色) × 2 (时间距离)完全被试间实验设计,通过问卷星招募192名在校大学生,使用风险偏好问卷测量风险决策得分(RPI值)。结果显示:(1) 决策角色主效应显著,为亲密朋友决策时的风险偏好显著高于为自己决策;(2) 时间距离主效应显著,一年后决策的风险偏好显著高于明天决策;(3) 二者的交互效应不显著,时间距离未能调节决策角色对风险决策的影响。进一步将风险决策拆分为收益与损失情境发现,上述主效应主要存在于损失情境中,而收益情境下所有效应均不显著。研究表明,决策角色和时间距离独立地影响风险决策,且这一影响主要发生在损失领域。研究结果支持了解释水平理论的基本预测,丰富了对自我–他人决策差异边界条件的理解,也为投资决策中的视角转换和时间框架选择提供了实践启示。
Abstract: Risk decision-making is an indispensable part of daily life. People not only make decisions for themselves but also frequently make decisions for others. Based on construal level theory, this study investigated the effect of decision role (self vs. close friend) on risk decision-making and the moderating role of temporal distance (tomorrow vs. one year later). A 2 (decision role) × 2 (temporal distance) between-subjects experimental design was adopted. A total of 192 college students were recruited through Questionnaire Star, and risk preference was measured using the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (RPI score). The results showed that: (1) The main effect of decision role was significant, with higher risk preference when making decisions for a close friend than for oneself; (2) The main effect of temporal distance was significant, with higher risk preference for decisions with outcomes one year later than for those with outcomes tomorrow; (3) The interaction effect between decision role and temporal distance was not significant, indicating that temporal distance did not moderate the effect of decision role on risk decision-making. Further analysis separating gain and loss contexts revealed that the above main effects existed primarily in the loss context, whereas no significant effects were found in the gain context. These findings suggest that decision role and temporal distance independently influence risk decision-making, and this influence occurs mainly in the loss domain. The results support the basic predictions of construal level theory, enrich the understanding of boundary conditions of self-other differences in decision-making, and provide practical implications for perspective-taking and time framing in investment decisions.
文章引用:陈一诺, 赵思懿 (2026). 决策角色对风险决策的影响:时间距离的调节作用. 心理学进展, 16(6), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.166295

参考文献

[1] 陈世平, 张艳, 王晓庄(2012). 内隐自尊和风险偏好对大学生职业决策的影响.心理科学, 35(1), 180-185.
[2] 刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅(2014). 自我-他人决策差异: 问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 580-587.
[3] 卢远新(2009). 跨期选择的风险偏好研究. 硕士学位论文, 开封: 河南大学.
[4] 马文娟, 索涛, 李亚丹, 罗笠铢, 冯廷勇, 李红(2012). 得失框架效应的分离——来自收益与损失型跨期选择的研究. 心理学报, 44(8), 1038-1046.
[5] 宋广文, 夏星星, 李承宗, 何云凤(2012). 时间距离、封面故事和概率对框架效应的影响. 心理学报, 44(7), 957-963.
[6] 杨丽萍(2018). 决策角色对不作为惯性的影响. 硕士学位论文, 烟台: 鲁东大学.
[7] 张黎娜(2017). 时间压力、决策角色对风险决策的影响研究. 硕士学位论文, 太原: 山西医科大学.
[8] 赵瑜(2019). 时间压力、决策角色、事件效价和思维方式对主观概率判断的影响. 硕士学位论文, 开封: 河南大学.
[9] 钟毅平, 申娟, 吴砷(2009). 风险决策任务中时间距离对框架效应的影响. 心理科学, 32(4), 920-924.
[10] Batteux, E., Ferguson, E., & Tunney, R. J. (2019). Do Our Risk Preferences Change When We Make Decisions for Others? A Meta-Analysis of Self-Other Differences in Decisions Involving Risk. PLOS ONE, 14, e0216566.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003). Risk Taking in Relationships: Differences in Deciding for Oneself versus for a Friend. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 121-135.[CrossRef
[12] Fareri, D. S., Stasiak, J. E., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2022). Choosing for Others Changes Dissociable Computational Mechanisms Underpinning Risky Decision-Making. Scientific Reports, 12, Article No. 14361.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A Fundamental Prediction Error: Self-Others Discrepancies in Risk Preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 45-53.[CrossRef
[15] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.[CrossRef
[16] Levin, I. P., & Hart, S. S. (2003). Risk Preferences in Young Children: Early Evidence of Individual Differences in Reaction to Potential Gains and Losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 397-413.[CrossRef
[17] Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others’ Actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Morelli, M., Casagrande, M., & Forte, G. (2022). Decision Making: A Theoretical Review. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56, 609-629.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Polman, E. (2010). Information Distortion in Self-Other Decision Making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 432-435.[CrossRef
[21] Polman, E. (2012). Self-Other Decision Making and Loss Aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 141-150.[CrossRef
[22] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Xu, S. (2021). Self-Other Discrepancies in Electrophysiological Response to Outcome Evaluation in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 170, 6-11.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Sarr, B., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). A Matter of Perspective: Choosing for Others Differs from Choosing for Yourself in Making Treatment Decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 618-622.[CrossRef] [PubMed]