你会对谁伸出援助之手：可识别受害者效应
Who Would You Lend a Helping Hand: Identifiable Victim Effect
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2016.610131, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 张梦婷, 袁 萌, 邢淑芬：首都师范大学心理学系，北京
关键词: 亲社会行为；可识别受害者效应；Pro-Social Behavior； Identifiable Victim Effect
摘要: 可识别受害者效应是指受害者的可识别性所造成的人们对受害者帮助行为增加的现象，是近年来亲社会行为研究领域出现的新的研究热点。首先，本文阐述了可识别受害者效应的基本概念；其次，本文详细论述了可识别受害者效应潜在的情境、情绪、认知机制；然后，本文从个体与情境交互作用的视角阐述了可识别受害者效应发生的影响因素；最后，本文对该领域的研究方向进行了小结。
Abstract: Identifiable victim effect is the phenomenon of the people increasing helping behavior caused by the victim’s identifiability. It is a new research hot spot in the field of social behavior research in recent years. First of all, this paper describes the basic concept of the identifiable victim effect. Secondly, it discusses in detail about the identifiable victim effect’s potential situation, emotion and cognitive mechanism. Then, from the perspective of the interaction between the individual and the situation, this paper expounds the factors influencing the occurrence of the victim’s effect; Finally, we have carried on the summary about research direction in this field.
文章引用：张梦婷, 袁萌, 邢淑芬 (2016). 你会对谁伸出援助之手：可识别受害者效应. 心理学进展, 6(10), 1032-1038. https://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AP.2016.610131

参考文献

[1] 侯玉波(著)(2013). 社会心理学. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[2] 邢淑芬, 袁萌, 孙琳, 林崇德(2015). 共情倾向与受害者可识别性对大学生捐款意愿的影响: 共情反应的中介作用. 心理科学, (4), 870-875.
[3] 钟敏锐(2011). 受害者可识别性对道德判断的影响. 桂林: 广西师范大学.
[4] Alexander, G., Daniel, V., Paul, S., & Brian, K. (2013). Neural Underpinnings of the Identifiable Victim Effect: Affect Shifts Preferences for Giving. Journal of Neuroscience the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33, 17188-17196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-13.2013[CrossRef] 
[5] Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. (1981). Empathy: A Source of Altruistic Motivation for Helping. In J. P. Rushton, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[6] Dickert, S. (2008). Two Routes to the Perception of Need: The Role of Affective and Deliberative Information Processing in Pro-Social Behavior. Doctoral Dissertation, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
[7] Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a Precursor to Pro-Social Behavior: The Impact of Numeracy and Presentation Format on the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Donation Decisions. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 41, 763-769.
[8] Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional Reactions, Perceived Impact and Perceived Responsibility Mediate the Identifiable Victim Effect, Proportion Dominance Effect and In-Group Effect Respectively. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 127, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003[CrossRef] 
[9] Friedrich, J. & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual Differences in Reasoning Style as a Moderator of the Identifiable Victim Effect. Social Influence, 5, 182-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534511003707352[CrossRef] 
[10] Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, Empathy, and Helping: A Person × Situation Perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 583-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.45[CrossRef] 
[12] Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the “Identi-fiable Victim Effect”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007740225484[CrossRef] 
[13] Kogut, T., & Kogut, E. (2011). Possession Attachment: Individual Differences in the Endowment Effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 377-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.698[CrossRef] 
[14] Kogut, T., & Kogut, E. (2013). Exploring the Relationship between Adult Attachment Style and the Identifiable Victim Effect in Helping Behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 651-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.011[CrossRef] 
[15] Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The “Identified Victim” Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492[CrossRef] 
[16] Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The Singularity Effect of Identified Victims in Separate and Joint Evaluations. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003[CrossRef] 
[17] Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of Us”: Outstanding Wil-lingness to Help Save a Single Identified Compatriot. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 104, 150-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.006[CrossRef] 
[18] Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2011). “Protective Donation”: When Donating to a Cause Decreases the Sense of Vulnerability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1059-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.006[CrossRef] 
[19] Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5[CrossRef] 
[20] Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The Vicissitudes of Human Sympathy and Caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112[CrossRef] 
[21] Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Limitations of Judgment. (Psy-chology and the Law: Human Inference). Science, 208, 713- 714.
[22] Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Peters, E., Slovic, P., & Gregory, R. (2003). The Role of Affect in the WTA/WTP Disparity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 309-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.448[CrossRef] 
[24] Slovic, P. (2007). If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing Psychic Numbing and Genocide Genocide. Judgment & Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
[25] Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 397-420). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.025[CrossRef] 
[26] Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and Callousness: The Impact of Deliberative thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005[CrossRef] 
[27] Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 665-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435[CrossRef] 
[28] Stapel, D. A., & Velthuijsen, A. S. (1996). “Just As If It Hap-pened to Me”: The Impact of Vivid and Self-Relevant Information on Risk Judgments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 102-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.102[CrossRef] 
[29] Van Lange, P. A. (2008). Does Empathy Trigger Only altruistic motivation? How about Selflessness or Justice? Emotion, 8, 766-774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013967[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Wiss, J., Andersson, D., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2015). The Influence of Identifiability and Singularity in Moral Decision Making. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 492-502.