學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 構念層次對降低稀釋效果的影響
The effects of construal level on dilution effect作者 楊芷頤
Yang, Tzu Yi貢獻者 孫蒨如
楊芷頤
Yang, Tzu Yi關鍵詞 構念層次
心理距離
診斷性訊息
非診斷性訊息
稀釋效果
Construal level
Psychological distance
Diagnostic information
Nondiagnostic information
Dilution effect日期 2017 上傳時間 24-Jul-2017 12:10:23 (UTC+8) 摘要 過往研究發現人們在對特定目標進行判斷時，不見得能夠針對與判斷目標有關的診斷性訊息來做判斷，也常會受到與目標判斷無關的非診斷性訊息所影響，使得最後的判斷變得更為保守或有偏誤，此種情形稱之為「稀釋效果」。過去的研究者大多從非診斷性訊息的類型，或個體進行判斷時的動機與目的等因素著手，來探討如何能降低稀釋效果，但鮮少有研究針對與判斷更有關聯的診斷性訊息加以考量。此外，我們也發現過往研究也未曾考慮到個體在判斷時其思考構念層次對目標判斷所可能造成的影響。因此本研究嘗試從構念層次的角度切入，探討是否能夠藉由操弄個人的思考構念層次及訊息之構念層次，來影響個人在判斷上所可能出現的偏誤。在研究一中我們採用兩種心理距離（時間距離、社會距離）來操弄思考層次，各自分別進行2（思考的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（診斷性訊息的構念層次：高vs.低）受試者間設計，探討何種心理距離在社會判斷上有更明顯的作用，及檢驗當個體的思考層次和診斷性訊息皆在同一個構念層次（配對）時，個體所做的判斷是否會較兩者並未在同一個層次（錯誤配對）時更強，所得結果部分符合假設。研究二則再加入非診斷性訊息進行驗證，研究參與者被隨機分派至2（思考的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（診斷性訊息的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（低構念層次之非診斷性訊息：有vs.無）受試者間設計。研究結果顯示，當思考層次和診斷性訊息與非診斷性訊息皆在同一層次時，不會產生稀釋效果；思考層次和兩種訊息皆不在同一層次時，雖然不會產生稀釋效果，但對目標對象的整體評價較低；而思考層次和其中任一種訊息不在同一構念層次，亦即錯誤配對時，則會對判斷產生干擾，造成稀釋效果，亦即對目標人物有著較低的評價。
Dilution effect refers to judgments that are influenced by nondiagnostic information and therefore become more conservative or less accurate. Previous researches focus mainly on the effects of nondiagnostic information types and motivations on the dilution effect and have not considered the possible impacts of the construal level of information. The present study tried to take the concept of construal level into consideration, and explored whether the match of construal level among individual’s thinking, diagnostic information (DI), and nondiagnostic information (NDI) had impacts on the dilution effect. Experiment 1 examined the possible effects of the match between the construal level of thinking and DI. We employed temporal distance and social distance as methods to manipulate construal level of thinking. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (construal level of thinking: high vs. low) × 2 (construal level of DI: high vs. low) factorial design. The results showed that participants with near temporal distance and concrete diagnostic information made more accurate judgement of the target person. In Experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (construal level of thinking: high vs. low) × 2 (construal level of DI: high vs. low) × 2 (low construal level of NDI: with vs. without) factorial design. The results showed that when the individual’s thinking, DI, and NDI were at the same construal level (match), participants seemed to be able to process information well and therefore showed no dilution effect of their judgements. Besides, we also found that when the individual’s thinking, DI, and NDI were not at the same construal level (mismatch), the dilution effect would occur and the judgments became more conservative. Further implications were also discussed.參考文獻 王秋鳳（2011）。心理距離對刻板印象的影響：建構層次論觀點。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。唐思郁（2014）。不同構念層次下價格對產品評價的影響歷程。東吳大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版。孫蒨如、李易儒（2004）。訊息型態及思考目的對稀釋效果的影響。中華心理學刊，46（1），57-74。徐名敬（2013）。社會比較對情緒之影響：心理距離之調節效果。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。高芷彤（2012）。訊息量與構念階層對於橫幅廣告偏好的影響。東吳大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版。高泉豐（1997）。社會推論的稀釋效果研究。行政院國家科學委員會研究計劃成果。陳柏宏（2011）。心理距離對超自然現象信念之影響：理性－經驗系統的調節效果。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。游知穎（2011）。心理距離對擇偶時愛情偏好之影響：建構層次論觀點。。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。魏美惠、鄭仲育（2006）。大學生心目中的好老師：研究、教學或服務能力之調查研究。花蓮教育大學學報，23，103-130。Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees a tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501-520.Denhaerinck, P. J., Leyens, J-Ph., &Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1989). The dilution effect and group membership: An instance of the pervasive impact of outgroup homogeneity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 243-250.Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or tree: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.Hilton, J. L., & Fein, S. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 201-211.Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2005). The conversational basis for the dilution effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 25-35. Kahneman, D., & Riepe, M. W. (1998). Aspects of investor psychology. Journal of Portfolio Management, 52-65.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology and prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.Kemmelmeier, M. (2004). Separating the wheat from the chaff: Does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 231-243.Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). Does the dilution effect have a conversational basis? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1), 48-60.Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-535.Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). The effect of similarity on mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.Odean, T. (1996). Volume, volatility, price, and profit when all traders are above average. Working Paper Series#266, University of California at Berkeley.Ortiz, M. J. (2011). Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568-1580.Peters, E., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (2), 177-187.Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H. (2009). Perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 155-173.Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond Fear and Greed. HBS PressTetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 43-55.Tsai, C. I., Klayman, J., & Hastie, R. (2008). Effects of amount of information on judgment accuracy and confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 107, 97-105. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Too much information: The perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 192-201.Zukier, H. (1982). The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1163-1174.Zukier, H., & Jennings, D. L. (1983-1984). Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction. Social Cognition, 2, 187-198. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
101752008資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101752008 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 孫蒨如 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊芷頤 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Tzu Yi en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊芷頤 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yang, Tzu Yi en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 24-Jul-2017 12:10:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 24-Jul-2017 12:10:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 24-Jul-2017 12:10:23 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101752008 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111359 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 心理學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101752008 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 過往研究發現人們在對特定目標進行判斷時，不見得能夠針對與判斷目標有關的診斷性訊息來做判斷，也常會受到與目標判斷無關的非診斷性訊息所影響，使得最後的判斷變得更為保守或有偏誤，此種情形稱之為「稀釋效果」。過去的研究者大多從非診斷性訊息的類型，或個體進行判斷時的動機與目的等因素著手，來探討如何能降低稀釋效果，但鮮少有研究針對與判斷更有關聯的診斷性訊息加以考量。此外，我們也發現過往研究也未曾考慮到個體在判斷時其思考構念層次對目標判斷所可能造成的影響。因此本研究嘗試從構念層次的角度切入，探討是否能夠藉由操弄個人的思考構念層次及訊息之構念層次，來影響個人在判斷上所可能出現的偏誤。在研究一中我們採用兩種心理距離（時間距離、社會距離）來操弄思考層次，各自分別進行2（思考的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（診斷性訊息的構念層次：高vs.低）受試者間設計，探討何種心理距離在社會判斷上有更明顯的作用，及檢驗當個體的思考層次和診斷性訊息皆在同一個構念層次（配對）時，個體所做的判斷是否會較兩者並未在同一個層次（錯誤配對）時更強，所得結果部分符合假設。研究二則再加入非診斷性訊息進行驗證，研究參與者被隨機分派至2（思考的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（診斷性訊息的構念層次：高vs.低）× 2（低構念層次之非診斷性訊息：有vs.無）受試者間設計。研究結果顯示，當思考層次和診斷性訊息與非診斷性訊息皆在同一層次時，不會產生稀釋效果；思考層次和兩種訊息皆不在同一層次時，雖然不會產生稀釋效果，但對目標對象的整體評價較低；而思考層次和其中任一種訊息不在同一構念層次，亦即錯誤配對時，則會對判斷產生干擾，造成稀釋效果，亦即對目標人物有著較低的評價。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Dilution effect refers to judgments that are influenced by nondiagnostic information and therefore become more conservative or less accurate. Previous researches focus mainly on the effects of nondiagnostic information types and motivations on the dilution effect and have not considered the possible impacts of the construal level of information. The present study tried to take the concept of construal level into consideration, and explored whether the match of construal level among individual’s thinking, diagnostic information (DI), and nondiagnostic information (NDI) had impacts on the dilution effect. Experiment 1 examined the possible effects of the match between the construal level of thinking and DI. We employed temporal distance and social distance as methods to manipulate construal level of thinking. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (construal level of thinking: high vs. low) × 2 (construal level of DI: high vs. low) factorial design. The results showed that participants with near temporal distance and concrete diagnostic information made more accurate judgement of the target person. In Experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (construal level of thinking: high vs. low) × 2 (construal level of DI: high vs. low) × 2 (low construal level of NDI: with vs. without) factorial design. The results showed that when the individual’s thinking, DI, and NDI were at the same construal level (match), participants seemed to be able to process information well and therefore showed no dilution effect of their judgements. Besides, we also found that when the individual’s thinking, DI, and NDI were not at the same construal level (mismatch), the dilution effect would occur and the judgments became more conservative. Further implications were also discussed. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 研究動機與目的 1第二章 文獻探討 4第一節 稀釋效果 4第二節 構念層次理論 11第三節 以構念層次來檢視社會判斷相關研究 17第三章 本研究想法 23第四章 研究方法 25第一節 前測 25第二節 研究一 36第三節 研究二 49第五章 綜合討論 62參考文獻 69附錄 72 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1487355 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101752008 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構念層次 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 心理距離 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 診斷性訊息 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非診斷性訊息 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 稀釋效果 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Construal level en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Psychological distance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Diagnostic information en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Nondiagnostic information en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Dilution effect en_US dc.title (題名) 構念層次對降低稀釋效果的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The effects of construal level on dilution effect en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王秋鳳（2011）。心理距離對刻板印象的影響：建構層次論觀點。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。唐思郁（2014）。不同構念層次下價格對產品評價的影響歷程。東吳大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版。孫蒨如、李易儒（2004）。訊息型態及思考目的對稀釋效果的影響。中華心理學刊，46（1），57-74。徐名敬（2013）。社會比較對情緒之影響：心理距離之調節效果。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。高芷彤（2012）。訊息量與構念階層對於橫幅廣告偏好的影響。東吳大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版。高泉豐（1997）。社會推論的稀釋效果研究。行政院國家科學委員會研究計劃成果。陳柏宏（2011）。心理距離對超自然現象信念之影響：理性－經驗系統的調節效果。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。游知穎（2011）。心理距離對擇偶時愛情偏好之影響：建構層次論觀點。。未出版之碩士論文，國防大學，心理及社會工作研究所，桃園市。魏美惠、鄭仲育（2006）。大學生心目中的好老師：研究、教學或服務能力之調查研究。花蓮教育大學學報，23，103-130。Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees a tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501-520.Denhaerinck, P. J., Leyens, J-Ph., &Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1989). The dilution effect and group membership: An instance of the pervasive impact of outgroup homogeneity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 243-250.Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or tree: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.Hilton, J. L., & Fein, S. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 201-211.Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2005). The conversational basis for the dilution effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 25-35. Kahneman, D., & Riepe, M. W. (1998). Aspects of investor psychology. Journal of Portfolio Management, 52-65.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology and prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.Kemmelmeier, M. (2004). Separating the wheat from the chaff: Does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 231-243.Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). Does the dilution effect have a conversational basis? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1), 48-60.Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-535.Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). The effect of similarity on mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.Odean, T. (1996). Volume, volatility, price, and profit when all traders are above average. Working Paper Series#266, University of California at Berkeley.Ortiz, M. J. (2011). Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568-1580.Peters, E., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (2), 177-187.Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H. (2009). Perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 155-173.Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond Fear and Greed. HBS PressTetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 43-55.Tsai, C. I., Klayman, J., & Hastie, R. (2008). Effects of amount of information on judgment accuracy and confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 107, 97-105. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Too much information: The perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 192-201.Zukier, H. (1982). The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1163-1174.Zukier, H., & Jennings, D. L. (1983-1984). Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction. Social Cognition, 2, 187-198. zh_TW
