مشخصات مقاله | |
ترجمه عنوان مقاله | تصمیم گیری برای خود و دیگران: چگونه تمرکز نظارتی بر “تاثیر نقش تصمیم گیرنده” برای انتخاب های میان مدتی تأثیر می گذارد |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Making decisions for oneself and others: How regulatory focus influences the ‘decision maker role effect’ for intertemporal choices |
انتشار | مقاله سال 2019 |
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | 8 صفحه |
هزینه | دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد. |
پایگاه داده | نشریه الزویر |
نوع نگارش مقاله |
مقاله پژوهشی (Research Article) |
مقاله بیس | این مقاله بیس میباشد |
نمایه (index) | Scopus – Master Journals List – JCR |
نوع مقاله | ISI |
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF) |
2.383 در سال 2018 |
شاخص H_index | 141 در سال 2019 |
شاخص SJR | 1.245 در سال 2018 |
شناسه ISSN | 0191-8869 |
شاخص Quartile (چارک) | Q1 در سال 2018 |
مدل مفهومی | ندارد |
پرسشنامه | ندارد |
متغیر | دارد |
رفرنس | دارد |
رشته های مرتبط | روانشناسی |
گرایش های مرتبط | روانشناسی عمومی |
نوع ارائه مقاله |
ژورنال |
مجله / کنفرانس | شخصیت و تفاوت های فردی – Personality and Individual Differences |
دانشگاه | School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, China |
کلمات کلیدی | نوع تمرکز نظارتی، تفاوت های خود با دیگران، تاثیر نقش تصمیم گیرنده، انتخاب میان مدتی |
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی | Regulatory focus type، Self-other differences، Decision maker role effect، Intertemporal choice |
شناسه دیجیتال – doi |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.034 |
کد محصول | E13707 |
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله | ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید. |
دانلود رایگان مقاله | دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله | سفارش ترجمه این مقاله |
فهرست مطالب مقاله: |
Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Overview of the present study 3. General discussion 4. Limitations and future research 5. Conclusion Ethical approval Informed consent Declaration of Competing Interest Acknowledgement References |
بخشی از متن مقاله: |
Abstract
We examined self-other differences in an intertemporal choice context, investigating whether choices vary according to different types of regulatory focus. In Study 1, the role of chronic regulatory focus on self-other intertemporal choice was investigated. In Study 2, we designed a causal chain of studies (Study 2a and 2b) to further examine the role of situational regulatory focus in the context of self-other intertemporal choice. Overall, we found a self-other difference for intertemporal choice: individuals who make choices for themselves or for an intimate friend prefer later and larger (LL) rewards than those making choices for a complete stranger, thus demonstrating a ‘decision maker role effect’. Secondly, regardless of chronic or induced regulatory focus, participants with a promotion focus preferred more immediate rewards, while participants with a prevention focus preferred deferred rewards. The self-other difference in intertemporal choice was manifested differently for those holding a chronic promotion focus versus those holding a chronic prevention focus; situationally induced regulatory focus, on the other hand, was found to play a mediating role in self-other intertemporal choice. Introduction Imagine being offered a choice between two monetary rewards: one option involves $10 being awarded right away, while the other provides $15 after one week. Which option would you choose? In our daily life, we are continuously confronted with choices that involve trade-offs between costs and delayed payoffs. Should you spend the money you make immediately or deposit it and spend it later? Should you take that job now, or spend more time in education in order to have a chance at a better job later on? This kind of decision making is known as intertemporal choice (Loewenstein, Read, & Baumeister, 2004). Given that intertemporal choice is so widespread, it has received significant attention across the fields of psychology, neuroscience and economics. A fundamental discovery is that individuals put larger value on sooner and smaller (SS) options than later and larger (LL) options, an effect known as the “time discount phenomenon”, or “Immediacy Effects” (Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’donoghue, 2002; Wang, Hao, Hu, & Shi, 2017). Just as in the opening example, most people will prefer to get $10 right now than obtaining $15 in one week. That is to say, most people prefer the SS option over the LL option. However, this tendency can reverse in some situations. For example, when two rewards are both far away in time, decision makers act relatively patiently, choosing the LL option. It is only when both rewards are brought forward in time that these preferences exhibit a reversal, reflecting greater impatience (Angeletos, Laibson, Repetto, Tobacman, & Weinberg, 2001). This is known as a Dynamic Inconsistency Effect. |