學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 吃虧欲人知：人際互動中主動吃虧的重要條件
I need people to know i choose to suffer losses: The important conditions of taking the initiative to suffer losses in interpersonal interaction.作者 馬依妍
Ma, Yi-Yan貢獻者 孫蒨如
馬依妍
Ma, Yi-Yan關鍵詞 主動吃虧
吃虧是福
互動對方
第三方
價
值
基於值的選擇
後續互動
知情與否
Take the initiative to suffer losses
Suffering a loss is a blessing
Interacting partner
The third party
Value
Worth
Worth-based choice
Subsequent interaction
Know or not know日期 2023 上傳時間 1-Feb-2023 14:13:50 (UTC+8) 摘要 在華人社會中，我們常聽到「吃虧是福」的概念，很多人將此作爲一種爲人處事的原則，在生活中經常做出主動吃虧的選擇。前人的研究提出了「基於值的選擇」機制，認爲人們在面對吃虧情境時，會比較「價」和「值」，放棄了眼前的「價」以謀求後續的「值」從而決定吃虧。本研究進一步探討個體願意吃虧的重要條件及其運作機制，首先定義了「主動吃虧」的概念，其次將重點放在「人際互動」情境，認爲「主動吃虧」想要獲得後續的「值」只有在滿足某些特定條件時才可成立。本研究認爲個體在決定是否要主動吃虧時所考量的兩個重要條件爲：1. 吃虧需人知，2. 需要有後續互動的可能，需「人」知的「人」分別為在人際互動情境下與自己「直接互動的對方」或「間接互動的第三方」。研究一和研究二均使用自編的情境腳本，研究一為2（互動對方知道/不知道自己吃虧）×2（與對方有/無後續互動可能）的受試者間設計，研究二則為2（第三方知道/不知道自己吃虧）×2（與第三方有/無後續互動可能）的受試者間設計。結果發現，人們主動吃虧的確「欲人知」，如果互動對方或是在場的第三方能夠知道自己吃虧，受試者都會選擇多吃點虧。另外，若與互動對方有後續互動可能時，則會考量值的維度，例如獲得後續回報、做人情和做朋友等因素；若是第三方在場時，受試者會基於第三方是否知情來考量值的維度，例如自己能藉由吃虧給其留下好印象等。最後，結果也發現，在第三方知情的情況下吃虧，意願會較高，感受也會較好。而倘若一定要吃虧、不能拿走全部自己應得的，此時人們也不會願意做齊頭式平等分配，通常吃虧的底線會在兩者之間做出折衷的中間值分配。
In the Chinese society, we often hear people say: “Suffering a loss is a blessing.” Many people take this as a principle of dealing with relationships and worldly ways, and often take the initiative to suffer losses in life. Previous studies have proposed a "worth-based choice" mechanism, which suggests that when people face a disadvantageous situation, they will compare "value" and "worth", and may give up the immediate "value" that can be obtained in order to seek subsequent "worth". Our research further explores the important conditions and operating mechanism of individuals willing to suffer losses. We propose that there are two important conditions should be meet for an individual to “take the initiative to suffer losses " to obtain sequent "worth": 1) The interacting partner or the third party needs to know about the loss; 2) Sequent interaction with the interacting partner or the third party is required. Both Study 1 and Study 2 used self-compiled scenarios. Study 1 was a 2 (the suffering loss was known / not known by the interacting partner) × 2 (subsequent/no subsequent interaction with the interacting partner) between-participants design. Study 2 was a 2 (the suffering loss was known / not known by the third party) ×2 (subsequent/no subsequent interaction with the third party) between-participants design. Results showed that people who take the initiative to suffer losses do "want others to know". If the interacting partner or the third party can know that they are suffering, they are willing to suffer more. In addition, if there is subsequent interaction with the interacting partner, the dimensions of “worth” will be considered, such as obtaining follow-up returns, giving a favor, and being friends. When an individual suffers a loss and the third party knows it, the dimension of "worth" will also be highlighted, for example, the individual will try to leave a good impression on the third party by suffering a loss. At this time, the individual is more willingness to suffer losses and the feeling is less negative. The results also found that if the individual must suffer a loss and cannot take all what he deserves, the individual will not be willing to make an equal distribution. Usually, the bottom line of the loss will be a compromise between the two.參考文獻 一、中文部分文崇一。（1988）。報恩與復仇：交換行為的分析。中國人的心理，臺北：桂冠圖書公司。朱真茹、楊國樞（1976）。個人現代性與相對作業量對報酬分配行為的影響。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，41，79-95。杜月（2007）。進化視角下的間接互惠行為——評《 道德體系生物學》 及其開啟的間接互惠行為研究。社會學研究，（3），209-225。林語堂（2009）。生活的藝術（林語堂英文作品集）。北京：外語教研出版社。周維麗（2020）。別讓好脾氣害了你。臺灣：發光體文化。唐輝（2012）。吃虧是福：一種基於值的選擇模型〔未出版之博士論文〕。中國科學院研究生院。唐輝（2014）。基於「值」選擇模型及其理論基礎探析。社會心理科學，（5），18-23。唐輝、周坤、趙翠霞 & 李紓（2014）。吃虧是福: 擇「值」選項而獲真利。心理學報， 46（10）， 1549。徐曉波（2010）。 「吃虧是福」 現象的心理學分析。社會心理科學，（6）， 46-49。馮必揚（2011）。人情社會與契約社會——基於社會交換理論的視角。社會科學，（9），67-75。費孝通（1985）。鄉土中國。北京：三聯書店。黃光國（1988）。人情與面子：中國人的權力遊戲。中國人的權力遊戲。台北: 巨流圖書公司。湯舒俊，舒博， & 張文淵（2015）。《 利他人格自陳量表》在大學生群體中的修訂。長江大學學報：社會科學版，38（7），87-89。鄒文篪，田青， & 劉佳（2012）。「投桃報李」——互惠理論的組織行為學研究述評。心理科學進展，20（011），1879-1888。楊中芳（2010）。 中庸實踐思維體系探研的初步進展。 本土心理學研究，(34)， 3-96.翟學偉（1993）。中國人際關係的特質-本土的概念及其模式。社會學研究 (北京)，(4)，239-257。鄭昱（2012）。基於「值」的選擇及其內在機制：來自行為、眼動、fMRI的研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。中國科學院研究生院。劉默（1995）。吃虧是福。臺北：新雨。羅學亮（2019）。從「吃虧是福」說開去。人大建設，9。二、英文部分Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of humor. Ethology and sociobiology, 7(3-4), 253-270.Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals` reputations related to their history of behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 320–333.Barclay, P. (2011). Competitive helping increases with the size of biological markets and invades defection. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281(1), 47–55.Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961-981.Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2007). Public charity offer as a proximate factor of evolved reputationbuilding strategy: An experimental analysis of a real-life situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 277–284.Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). The presence of others, prosocial traits, Machiavellianism: A personality × situation approach. Social Psychology, 41(4), 238–245.Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.). (1997). Measurement, judgment, and decision making. Elsevier.Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Böhm, R., & Regner, T. (2013). Charitable giving among females and males: An empirical test of the competitive altruism hypothesis. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15(3), 251–267.Chiang, Y.S. (2010). Self-interested partner selection can lead to the emergence of fairness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 265–270.Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson selection task. Cognition, 31(3), 187–276.Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). The cognitive neuroscience of social reasoning. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1259–1270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2011). The evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 13335-13340.Duffy, J., & Kornienko, T. (2010). Does competition affect giving? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(1), 82–103.Ekström, M. (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530–546.Emerson, (1981). Social exchange theory. Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (Ed). New York: Basic Books.Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Interacting minds-A biological basis. Science, 286, 1692–1695.Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (2008). Rationality the fast and frugal way: Introduction. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 976-986.Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402-1413.Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150, 18–23.Lamba, S., & Mace, R. (2010). People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 271–278.Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20, 147–163. doi:10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7Li, S. (2016). An Equate-to-Differentiate Way of Decision-Making. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. ISBM 9787567544536Li, S., Bi, Y.-L., Su, Y., & Rao, L.-L. (2011). An additional gain can make you feel bad and an additional loss can make you feel good. Advances in Psychological Science, 19, 9-17.Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.Méndez, R. T. (1974). Consumers` Evaluations of Multiple-attribute Objects. Stanford University.Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 332-345.Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 109–117.Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.Oda, R., Niwa, Y., Honma, A., & Hiraishi, K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 166–171.Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of clinical psychology, 38(1), 119-125.Schall, J. D. (2001). Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2 (1), 33 33–42.Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychoological Review, 63, 129-138.Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: Volume One. London: printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, 1776..Steelandt, S., Dufour, V., Broihanne, M. H., Thierry, B., & Santos, L. (2011). Can monkeys make investments based on maximized pay-off? PLoS ONE, 6, e17801.Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly review of biology, 46(1), 35-57.Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358-361.van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A., & van Munster, L. M. (2011). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 857–870.Vugt, M. V., & Hardy, C. L. (2010). Cooperation for reputation: Wasteful contributions as costly signals in public goods. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 101–111.Vugt, M. V., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2005). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett. Handbook ofevolutionary psychology (pp. 531–549). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Wei, C. (2016). Indirect reciprocity mechanism promotes the evolution of cooperation. Advances in Psychology, 06(11), 1183-1191.Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.Wu, J. B., Hom, P. W., Tetrick, L. E., Shore, L. M., Jia, L., Li, C., & Song, L. J. (2006). The norm of reciprocity: Scale development and validation in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 377-402.Zhao, C. X., Shen, S. C., Rao, L. L., Zheng, R., Liu, H., & Li, S. (2018). Suffering a loss is good fortune: Myth or reality?. Journal of behavioral decision making, 31(3), 324-340.Zheng, Y., Shen, S. C., Xu, M. X., Rao, L. L., & Li, S. (2019). Worth-based choice: giving an offered smaller pear an even greater fictional value. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
108752027資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108752027 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 孫蒨如 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 馬依妍 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Ma, Yi-Yan en_US dc.creator (作者) 馬依妍 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Ma, Yi-Yan en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Feb-2023 14:13:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Feb-2023 14:13:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Feb-2023 14:13:50 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108752027 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143197 - 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) 108752027 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在華人社會中，我們常聽到「吃虧是福」的概念，很多人將此作爲一種爲人處事的原則，在生活中經常做出主動吃虧的選擇。前人的研究提出了「基於值的選擇」機制，認爲人們在面對吃虧情境時，會比較「價」和「值」，放棄了眼前的「價」以謀求後續的「值」從而決定吃虧。本研究進一步探討個體願意吃虧的重要條件及其運作機制，首先定義了「主動吃虧」的概念，其次將重點放在「人際互動」情境，認爲「主動吃虧」想要獲得後續的「值」只有在滿足某些特定條件時才可成立。本研究認爲個體在決定是否要主動吃虧時所考量的兩個重要條件爲：1. 吃虧需人知，2. 需要有後續互動的可能，需「人」知的「人」分別為在人際互動情境下與自己「直接互動的對方」或「間接互動的第三方」。研究一和研究二均使用自編的情境腳本，研究一為2（互動對方知道/不知道自己吃虧）×2（與對方有/無後續互動可能）的受試者間設計，研究二則為2（第三方知道/不知道自己吃虧）×2（與第三方有/無後續互動可能）的受試者間設計。結果發現，人們主動吃虧的確「欲人知」，如果互動對方或是在場的第三方能夠知道自己吃虧，受試者都會選擇多吃點虧。另外，若與互動對方有後續互動可能時，則會考量值的維度，例如獲得後續回報、做人情和做朋友等因素；若是第三方在場時，受試者會基於第三方是否知情來考量值的維度，例如自己能藉由吃虧給其留下好印象等。最後，結果也發現，在第三方知情的情況下吃虧，意願會較高，感受也會較好。而倘若一定要吃虧、不能拿走全部自己應得的，此時人們也不會願意做齊頭式平等分配，通常吃虧的底線會在兩者之間做出折衷的中間值分配。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the Chinese society, we often hear people say: “Suffering a loss is a blessing.” Many people take this as a principle of dealing with relationships and worldly ways, and often take the initiative to suffer losses in life. Previous studies have proposed a "worth-based choice" mechanism, which suggests that when people face a disadvantageous situation, they will compare "value" and "worth", and may give up the immediate "value" that can be obtained in order to seek subsequent "worth". Our research further explores the important conditions and operating mechanism of individuals willing to suffer losses. We propose that there are two important conditions should be meet for an individual to “take the initiative to suffer losses " to obtain sequent "worth": 1) The interacting partner or the third party needs to know about the loss; 2) Sequent interaction with the interacting partner or the third party is required. Both Study 1 and Study 2 used self-compiled scenarios. Study 1 was a 2 (the suffering loss was known / not known by the interacting partner) × 2 (subsequent/no subsequent interaction with the interacting partner) between-participants design. Study 2 was a 2 (the suffering loss was known / not known by the third party) ×2 (subsequent/no subsequent interaction with the third party) between-participants design. Results showed that people who take the initiative to suffer losses do "want others to know". If the interacting partner or the third party can know that they are suffering, they are willing to suffer more. In addition, if there is subsequent interaction with the interacting partner, the dimensions of “worth” will be considered, such as obtaining follow-up returns, giving a favor, and being friends. When an individual suffers a loss and the third party knows it, the dimension of "worth" will also be highlighted, for example, the individual will try to leave a good impression on the third party by suffering a loss. At this time, the individual is more willingness to suffer losses and the feeling is less negative. The results also found that if the individual must suffer a loss and cannot take all what he deserves, the individual will not be willing to make an equal distribution. Usually, the bottom line of the loss will be a compromise between the two. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 研究動機與目的 1第二章 文獻綜述 3第一節 吃虧是福 3第二節 主動吃虧的目的性：「基於值的選擇」 6第三節 主動吃虧的重要條件 13第四節 本研究想法 20第三章 研究一 「吃虧需對方知」和「與對方有後續互動可能」對主動吃虧選擇的影響 22第一節 研究目的 22第二節 研究方法 22第三節 結果與討論 28第四章 研究二 「吃虧需第三方知」和「與第三方有後續互動可能」對主動吃虧選擇的影響 42第一節 研究目的 42第二節 研究方法 42第三節 結果與討論 48第四節 研究一與研究二結果彙整 61第五章 綜合討論 62第一節 主要發現與討論 63第二節 研究限制與展望 69參考文獻 72附錄 78附錄1 研究一問卷完整版 78附錄2 研究二問卷完整版 81附錄3 利社會行爲量表 84附錄4 社會期許量表 85附錄5 憨牛量表 85附錄6 文內附圖 86 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3632926 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108752027 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 主動吃虧 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 吃虧是福 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 互動對方 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 第三方 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 價 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 值 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 基於值的選擇 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 後續互動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知情與否 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Take the initiative to suffer losses en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Suffering a loss is a blessing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Interacting partner en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) The third party en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Value en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Worth en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Worth-based choice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Subsequent interaction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Know or not know en_US dc.title (題名) 吃虧欲人知：人際互動中主動吃虧的重要條件 zh_TW dc.title (題名) I need people to know i choose to suffer losses: The important conditions of taking the initiative to suffer losses in interpersonal interaction. en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分文崇一。（1988）。報恩與復仇：交換行為的分析。中國人的心理，臺北：桂冠圖書公司。朱真茹、楊國樞（1976）。個人現代性與相對作業量對報酬分配行為的影響。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，41，79-95。杜月（2007）。進化視角下的間接互惠行為——評《 道德體系生物學》 及其開啟的間接互惠行為研究。社會學研究，（3），209-225。林語堂（2009）。生活的藝術（林語堂英文作品集）。北京：外語教研出版社。周維麗（2020）。別讓好脾氣害了你。臺灣：發光體文化。唐輝（2012）。吃虧是福：一種基於值的選擇模型〔未出版之博士論文〕。中國科學院研究生院。唐輝（2014）。基於「值」選擇模型及其理論基礎探析。社會心理科學，（5），18-23。唐輝、周坤、趙翠霞 & 李紓（2014）。吃虧是福: 擇「值」選項而獲真利。心理學報， 46（10）， 1549。徐曉波（2010）。 「吃虧是福」 現象的心理學分析。社會心理科學，（6）， 46-49。馮必揚（2011）。人情社會與契約社會——基於社會交換理論的視角。社會科學，（9），67-75。費孝通（1985）。鄉土中國。北京：三聯書店。黃光國（1988）。人情與面子：中國人的權力遊戲。中國人的權力遊戲。台北: 巨流圖書公司。湯舒俊，舒博， & 張文淵（2015）。《 利他人格自陳量表》在大學生群體中的修訂。長江大學學報：社會科學版，38（7），87-89。鄒文篪，田青， & 劉佳（2012）。「投桃報李」——互惠理論的組織行為學研究述評。心理科學進展，20（011），1879-1888。楊中芳（2010）。 中庸實踐思維體系探研的初步進展。 本土心理學研究，(34)， 3-96.翟學偉（1993）。中國人際關係的特質-本土的概念及其模式。社會學研究 (北京)，(4)，239-257。鄭昱（2012）。基於「值」的選擇及其內在機制：來自行為、眼動、fMRI的研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。中國科學院研究生院。劉默（1995）。吃虧是福。臺北：新雨。羅學亮（2019）。從「吃虧是福」說開去。人大建設，9。二、英文部分Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of humor. Ethology and sociobiology, 7(3-4), 253-270.Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals` reputations related to their history of behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 320–333.Barclay, P. (2011). Competitive helping increases with the size of biological markets and invades defection. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281(1), 47–55.Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961-981.Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2007). Public charity offer as a proximate factor of evolved reputationbuilding strategy: An experimental analysis of a real-life situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 277–284.Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). The presence of others, prosocial traits, Machiavellianism: A personality × situation approach. Social Psychology, 41(4), 238–245.Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.). (1997). Measurement, judgment, and decision making. Elsevier.Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Böhm, R., & Regner, T. (2013). Charitable giving among females and males: An empirical test of the competitive altruism hypothesis. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15(3), 251–267.Chiang, Y.S. (2010). Self-interested partner selection can lead to the emergence of fairness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 265–270.Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson selection task. Cognition, 31(3), 187–276.Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). The cognitive neuroscience of social reasoning. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1259–1270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2011). The evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 13335-13340.Duffy, J., & Kornienko, T. (2010). Does competition affect giving? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(1), 82–103.Ekström, M. (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530–546.Emerson, (1981). Social exchange theory. Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (Ed). New York: Basic Books.Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Interacting minds-A biological basis. Science, 286, 1692–1695.Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (2008). Rationality the fast and frugal way: Introduction. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 976-986.Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402-1413.Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150, 18–23.Lamba, S., & Mace, R. (2010). People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 271–278.Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20, 147–163. doi:10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7Li, S. (2016). An Equate-to-Differentiate Way of Decision-Making. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. ISBM 9787567544536Li, S., Bi, Y.-L., Su, Y., & Rao, L.-L. (2011). An additional gain can make you feel bad and an additional loss can make you feel good. Advances in Psychological Science, 19, 9-17.Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.Méndez, R. T. (1974). Consumers` Evaluations of Multiple-attribute Objects. Stanford University.Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 332-345.Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 109–117.Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.Oda, R., Niwa, Y., Honma, A., & Hiraishi, K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 166–171.Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of clinical psychology, 38(1), 119-125.Schall, J. D. (2001). Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2 (1), 33 33–42.Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychoological Review, 63, 129-138.Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: Volume One. London: printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, 1776..Steelandt, S., Dufour, V., Broihanne, M. H., Thierry, B., & Santos, L. (2011). Can monkeys make investments based on maximized pay-off? PLoS ONE, 6, e17801.Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly review of biology, 46(1), 35-57.Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358-361.van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A., & van Munster, L. M. (2011). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 857–870.Vugt, M. V., & Hardy, C. L. (2010). Cooperation for reputation: Wasteful contributions as costly signals in public goods. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 101–111.Vugt, M. V., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2005). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett. Handbook ofevolutionary psychology (pp. 531–549). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Wei, C. (2016). Indirect reciprocity mechanism promotes the evolution of cooperation. Advances in Psychology, 06(11), 1183-1191.Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.Wu, J. B., Hom, P. W., Tetrick, L. E., Shore, L. M., Jia, L., Li, C., & Song, L. J. (2006). The norm of reciprocity: Scale development and validation in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 377-402.Zhao, C. X., Shen, S. C., Rao, L. L., Zheng, R., Liu, H., & Li, S. (2018). Suffering a loss is good fortune: Myth or reality?. Journal of behavioral decision making, 31(3), 324-340.Zheng, Y., Shen, S. C., Xu, M. X., Rao, L. L., & Li, S. (2019). Worth-based choice: giving an offered smaller pear an even greater fictional value. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13. zh_TW
