| Most of the current researches on the difference between self-others decision making interpret their experimental results on the basis of the hypothesis of psychological distance. Although a great deal of research has investigated the difference between self-other decision making, surprisingly little work has addressed the process by which people make decisions for different others. Social Values Theory suggests that people tend to base their decision-making for others or advises for others’ decision-making on the norms and standards corresponding to social values, whereas decisions for individual themselves are influenced by a number of other factors. And the further individuals are from others in psychological distance, the more they tend to rely on social values in making decisions for others. On the basis of previous researches, this study examines this hypothesis through exploring the difference of the risk preference when people make decisions for others of different psychological distance on issues with various standards of social values. It also discusses the effectiveness of "familiarity" and "similarity", two concepts frequently used to identify the psychological distance between a person and different others.This thesis contains three studies, each with two experiments. The first study examines the risk preference in decision-making for others of different psychological distance on the issues of money, which is neutral in social value standard (a standard with no explicit encouragement for people to take risk or not). Experiment 1 in this study, through distinguishing between specific others and abstract others, tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in making decisions for others under situations of gain and loss of money. Experiment 2 in this study is based on the similarity in personality between the subjects and others. Through distinguishing between "similar others" and "dissimilar others", it tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in the same tasks. The second study examines the risk preference in making decisions for others of different psychological distance on the issues of safety, on which social value standard tends to be conservative (a standard that encourages people to avert risk). Experiment 3 in this study tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in making decisions for "specific others" and "abstract others" on safety issues with both high life-impact scenarios and low life-impact scenarios. Experiment 4 in this study tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in making decisions for "similar others" and "dissimilar others" on the same issues. The third study examines the risk preference in decision-making for others of different psychological distance on the issue of romantic relationship, where risk-taking is valued for males and risk-aversion is valued for females according to the social norm. Experiment 5 in this study tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in making decisions for "specific others" and "abstract others" on the friend-making issues with both high life-impact scenarios and low life-impact scenarios. Experiment 6 in this study tests the risk preference of both male and female subjects in making decisions for "similar others" and "dissimilar others" on the same issues.The result of the first study shows that there is no difference in risk preference in making decisions for others of different psychological distance (either between "specific others" and "abstract others", and between "similar others" and "dissimilar others") on issues of money, which is neutral in social values. In Experiment 1, neither the main effect of the gender of decision-makers nor that of the decision-making issues is obvious. However, interactive effect is identified between the gender of decision-makers and the issues of decision-making. Male subjects tend to take more risk in making decisions for others on the loss-of-money issue than on the gain-of-money issue. Female subjects, on the other hand, display no difference between these two situations. In Experiment 2, the main effect of the gender of decision-makers is not significant, but the main effect of the decision-making issues is significant. Subjects are more risk-taking in making decisions for the loss-of-money issue than for the gain-of-money issue.Besides, complex interactive effect is displayed among the psychological distance, the gender of decision-makers and the decision-making issues:male subjects are more risk-taking in making decisions for "similar others" on the issue with serious consequence (loss of money) than on the issue with less serious consequence (gain of money); while female subjects display a similar inclination when making decisions for "dissimilar others". This complex outcome is probably connected with the fact that the social norm concerning money issues is not clear and consequently no specific rules could be followed when people make decisions for others.In the second study concerning the decision-making issues with a clear conservative social norm, difference of subjects’risk preference in making decisions for others of different psychological distance (both between "specific others" and "abstract others", and between "similar others" and "dissimilar others") is identified. In Experiment 3, subjects tend to be more conservative in making decisions for "abstract others" than for "specific others". In Experiment 4, subjects tend to be more conservative in making decisions for "dissimilar others" than for "similar others". In Experiment 4, there is obvious interactive effect between psychological distance and gender. Male subjects display no different risk preference in making decisions for "similar others" and "dissimilar others", while female subjects are more conservative when making decisions for "dissimilar others" than for "similar others". Generally speaking, this outcome is consistent with the hypothesis of the Social Values Theory that people tend to follow social norms when making decisions for others of further psychological distance.In the third study concerning the issue of romantic relationship, where risk-taking is valued for males and risk-aversion is valued for females, Experiment 5 shows that male subjects are more risk-taking in making decisions for "specific others" than for "abstract others", while female subjects are more risk-taking in making decisions for "abstract others" than for "specific others". Experiment 6 shows that both male and female subjects are more risk-taking in making decisions for "dissimilar others" than for "similar others". In other words, when "others" are distinguished by familiarity, both male and female subjects follow the gender role expected by social norms in making decisions and show difference in their decision-making, while when "others" are distinguished by similarity, this difference disappears. The reason is probably that, on this friends-making issue which is highly sensitive in society, the first distinction of "others" only touches the superficial social relations between individuals and different "others", inducing them to follow the norms consistent with social values in making decisions for others, while the latter distinction of "others" touches the deeper and more intimate psychological relations between individuals and different "others", making individuals place themselves in others’ positions and break the shackles of social norms when making decisions for them.In sum, the result of this research confirms the general hypothesis of the Social Values Theory. But on the other hand, it seems to suggest that whether people would follow social norms in making decisions for others is connected with both the clarity of the social value standard on the decision-making issues and which level of psychological relation the distance between individuals and others could touch. More detailed study is needed to discuss specific decision-making tasks as well as the essence of psychological distance between individuals themselves and others. |
PDF Full Text Request