社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

社会价值取向是个体在经济分配中，对自己和他人经济分配结果的一种稳定偏好，一般分为亲社会型取向和亲自我型取向。具有亲社会型取向的个体(亲社会型个体)在社会交互中倾向于做出亲社会行为，而具有亲自我型取向的个体(亲自我型个体)则倾向于做出亲自我行为。而对于亲社会行为发生的原因，研究者提出了共情一利他假设和社会规范假设，认为对观察对象的共情和对社会规范的遵从是亲社会行为发生的重要原因。本研究将从这两个假设出发，探讨不同社会价值取向的个体在共情反应和对社会规范遵从上的差异。

研究1中，我们采用行为学的研究方法考察不同社会价值取向的个体对他人经济结果的共情反应。结果发现在观看到陌生人(实验1)和喜欢的人(实验2)的经济结果时，亲社会型个体和亲自我型个体都表现出共情反应:为他人的赢钱而高兴，输钱而难过;而当观看到不喜欢的人(实验2)的经济结果时，亲社会型个体依然表现出共情反应，而亲自我型个体则表现出反共情:为他人的赢钱而难过，输钱而高兴。

研究2根据社会规范假说，考察了不同社会价值取向的个体对公认型社会规范一一相等规范的遵从上的差异，实验3呈现给被试自己和其他两名玩家的赌博结果，结果发现在行为评估上亲社会型个体无论输或者赢都表现相等偏好，而亲自我型个体则表现自我利益最大化的偏好一一输时偏好大家一起输，而赢时则偏好只有自己赢的情况。实验4考察了其在神经机制上的差异，结果发现，从FRN(反馈负波，feedback related negativity)成分上来看，无论自己输还是赢，亲社会型个体表现出相等偏好，而亲自我型个体在自己赢时表现出相等偏好，输时则不再关心他人的结果。对于行为和ERP(事件相关电位，event-related potentials)结果上的不同，我们将此解释为在不同的时间进程上的差异。

研究3，基于社会规范假说，我们进一步考察不同社会价值取向个体对描述型社会规则的敏感性，研究中我们呈现给被试正性规范(大多人将面孔评价的更具吸引力)和负性规范(大多人将面孔评价的更不惧吸引力)，在行为上(实验5),我们发现亲社会型个体在偏离正性和负性的社会规范时表现出类似水平的从众行为，而亲自我型个体在偏离负性社会规范时表现出更高水平的从众;在ERP成分上，我们发现在刺激呈现后的220-450 ms内的负波上，亲社会型个体在偏离两种社会规范时的波幅无显著差异，而亲自我型在偏离负性社会规范时有更大的负波，并且350-450 ms时间窗的负波(更晚期的成分)可以显著预测个体在负性社会规范影响下的从众行为(实验6)。

以上的研究结果表明，对于陌生人和喜欢的人的经济得失，亲社会型个体和亲自我型个体都表现出共情反应，而对不喜欢的人的经济得失，亲社会型个体依然表现出共情，而亲自我型个体则表现出反共情;在面对三人经济分配结果时，亲社会型个体表现出对相等规范的遵从，而亲自我型个体则追求自我利益最大化或不关心他人的结果;面对描述型社会规范时，亲社会型个体对正性规范和负性规范表现出相同程度的遵从，而亲自我型个体则对负性规范表现出更高水平的遵从。这些结果对于我们理解亲社会行为的机制具有重要的启示作用。

Social value orientation (SVO) is an individual's stable preference for economic distribution between self and others. According to the SVOs, individuals can be categorized into prosocials and proselfs. During social interaction, prosocials make more prosocial behavior, while proselfs make more selfish behavior. Regarding the origin of prosocial behaviors, there are two hypotheses that empathy and social norm are the drivers of prosocial behavior. Therefore, in the present thesis, we investigated that whether there is a modulation effect of SVO on empathic responses and sensitivity to social conformity.

In Study 1，we investigated the modulation effect of SVO on the individual's empathic responses to economic gains and losses. The results showed that when observing the stranger's (Experiment 1)or social liking one (Experiment 2)'s gambling results, both prosocials and proselfs showed empathic responses, while when observing social disliking one (Experiment 2)'s gambling results, prosocials showed empathic responses, while proselfs showed counter-empathic responses, i.e., schadenfreude.

In Study 2, we examined whether people with different SVOs will exhibit different conformity to injunctive norm, here is equity. The results showed that on the behavioral ratings (Experiment 3), prosocials always exhibited a preference to equity regardless of self's win or loss, while proselfs preferred to maximize self-benefit, i.e., they liked losing with all other people, and wining only by himself/herself. While on the ERP (event-related potentials) results (Experiment 4), we analyzed FRN (feedback related negativity) and found that prosocials always exhibited a preference to equity, regardless of self's win or loss, while proselfs exhibited an equity preference when in self-win condition, and cared less about others' results when in self-loss condition. The differences between behavioral ratings and ERPs may result from the time course

differences.

In Study 3, we examined the modulation effect of SVOs on social conformity to descriptive norm. Behavioral results (Experiment 5) showed that prosocials showed similar social conformity under positive norm (group rated the face as more attractive) and negative norm (group rated the face as less attractive), while proselfs showed more conformity under negative norm than positive norm. On the ERP results (Experiment 6), we also found similar results that prosocials had similar negative wave (220-4_50 ms) under both positive norm and negative norm, while proselfs showed a more negative wave under negative norm. And the amplitude of negative wave in 350-450 ms can predict the conformity behavior.

In summary, prosocials and proselfs show similar empathy to strangers' and liking one's economic gain and loss, for disliking one's economic results, prosocials show empathy, while proselfs show counter-empathy. When facing three-person economic results, prosocials exhibit an equity preference (injunctive norm---equity), while proselfs tend to maximize the relative benefit or care less about their outcomes. When under descriptive norm, prosocials show similar conformity to positive and negative norm, while proselfs showed more conformity to negative norm. These results shed light on the mechanisms of prosocial behaviors.