Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Who donates more generously between high and low social classes? Existing studies have provided different answers. One potential reason is that prior research fails to distinguish between categories of survival and developmental donation. We conducted five studies to examine the differences in donor behaviour between high and low social classes in terms of preference for survival or developmental categories of donation and the underlying mechanisms involved in this decision.In Study 1, we manipulated participants' relative sense of social class by comparing them with the highest or lowest class and measured their preference for survival and developmental donations. Results found that participants with a sense of high social class were more likely to choose developmental donations, whereas those with a sense of low social class were more likely to choose survival donations. In Study 2, we measured the participant's' true social class, their tendency to regulatory focus, and their preference between survival and development donations. Results found that those of high social class chose more developmental donations, whereas those of low social class chose more survival donations. Additionally, those of a higher social class had a higher promotion focus and lower prevention focus; thus, they preferred developmental donations, which supports the regulatory focus explanation. In Study 3, we adopted a between-subject design and measured participants' true social class and their own survival or development demand, as well as their preference for survival or development donations. Results revealed that only the index of subjective social class and not objective social class showed a consistent tendency with Studies 1 and 2. The survival or development demand of high/low social class did not predict the participants' own survival and development donations, which did not support the demand migration explanation. In Study 4, we set up survival and development items with prevention/promotion focus representation to separate the regulatory focus and demand migration explanations. We observed that subjective social classes' choice preferences changed with representations of regulatory focus, rather than such individuals consistently choosing survival or developmental items owing to the migration of requirements. In Study 5, we set up different representations (regulatory focus × intertemporal orientation) of survival and developmental items to test whether participants' preferences changed with representations of regulatory focus motivation or intertemporal orientation. The results showed that when developmental items were characterized as a long-term-promoted focus, high subjective social class individuals preferred developmental donations, whereas low subjective social class individuals preferred survival donations when survival items were characterized as a short-term-preventive focus. When developmental items were characterized as a long-term-preventive focus, low subjective social class individuals preferred developmental donations, whereas high social class individuals preferred survival donations when survival items were characterized as a short-term-promoted focus. These results suggest that subjective social classes' preference for survival/developmental donation changes with the representation of regulatory focus motivation but is not consistent with the representation of intertemporal orientation; this supports the regulatory focus explanation and rejects the demand migration explanation and intertemporal preference explanation.These findings provide new insights into donation contradictions, variable mechanisms for donation between high and low social classes, and the precise motivations for providing survival and developmental donations.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Distortion of doctor-patient communication often leads to high misdiagnosis rate and conflict. How to scientifically and effectively carry out risk communication between doctors and patients? This is a hot spot in recent years, such as "Nature", "Science" and other journals and it is also an important issue that our country needs to overcome urgently. Two types of risk theories have been proposed to explain this. Among them, the concrete representational of risk communication believes that risk information is difficult to understand, and if the risk information is concreted, risk communication distortion can be reduced; the abstract representational of risk communication believes that abstract risk information is convenient for transmission, if risk information is abstracted, risk communication distortion can be reduced. These two contradictory risk concepts are difficult to provide accurate solutions for clinical doctor-patient communication, and it is also difficult to explain why sometimes the risk concretization is better, and sometimes the risk abstraction is better. Based on construct level theory, we proposed a mixed model of event experience and probability experience by matching doctor-patient role and information, to reconcile contradictions and provide countermeasures. Specifically, in the event experience of the disease, doctors provide advice to others, and the event is less attractive to them, so doctors have a farther psychological distance from the disease, and are better at representing abstract risk information. When faced with concrete risk information, risk perception bias is large. Patients make decisions for themselves, and the event is more attractive to them, so patients have a closer psychological distance from the disease, and are better at representing concrete risk information. When faced with abstract risk information, the risk perception bias is large; In terms of the probability experience of disease information, doctors have rich experience in diagnosis and are more sensitive to experiential probability information. Therefore, doctors have a closer psychological distance with disease information, and are more inclined to make decisions based on experience, which are easy to underestimate small probability events. Patients lack experience in diagnosis and are insensitive to descriptive probability information. Therefore, patients have a farther psychological distance from disease information, and are more inclined to make decisions based on description, which are easy to overestimate high-probability events. In conclusion, in the risk communication between doctors and patients, the "matching" of roles and information can promote the accurate perception of risk information by doctors and patients, that is, communicating abstract representational risk with doctors and communicating concrete representational risk with patients, which can reduce the risk distortion. In real life, the process of doctor-patient risk communication is complex, and further research is needed in the future: 1) The impact of individual differences on the matching effect, such as the individual's computing ability, spatial ability, etc.; 2) In the doctor-patient risk communication, ecological validity of matching effect should also be take into account, such as doctor-patient empathy, emotional needs of relatives, etc.; 3) Explore more appropriate education models from a theoretical perspective, and develop more risk experience and risk transformation technologies from a practical perspective, so as to improve the quality of doctor-patient risk communication more scientifically and effectively.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-05
Abstract： Distortion of doctor-patient communication often leads to high misdiagnosis rate and conflict. Although prior studies have proposed concrete representational model and abstract representational model of risk communication, there are still many contradictions or inconsistencies. Based on construct level theory, we proposed a mixed model of event experience and probability experience by matching doctor-patient role and information, to reconcile contradictions and provide countermeasures: the distortion of risk can be reduced by communicating abstract representational risk with doctors and communicating concrete representational risk with patients. Further research needs to focus on individual differences, ecological validity, and communication tools of such matching effect.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment