CAJ | 학술논문

采用Chicken Game博弈任务，考察了不同社会价值取向个体（亲社会者与亲自我者）在面对不同社会距离的博弈对手（朋友和陌生人）时表现出的合作与冲突行为。研究结果发现（1）社会价值取向与社会距离交互影响个体的合作与冲突行为的选择率；（2）社会价值取向影响选择策略的反应时；（3）反馈类型显著影响个体随后决策中合作与冲突行为的选择率以及反应时。上述结果表明，个体的合作或冲突行为，并非单一地受到社会价值取向的影响，更可能是受到个人因素（社会价值取向）与其他社会因素（比如，社会距离）的共同调节，并且在这一过程中个体会根据决策后反馈信息不断的调整自己的行为策略。
채용Chicken Game박혁임무，고찰료불동사회개치취향개체（친사회자여친자아자）재면대불동사회거리적박혁대수（붕우화맥생인）시표현출적합작여충돌행위。연구결과발현（1）사회개치취향여사회거리교호영향개체적합작여충돌행위적선택솔；（2）사회개치취향영향선택책략적반응시；（3）반궤류형현저영향개체수후결책중합작여충돌행위적선택솔이급반응시。상술결과표명，개체적합작혹충돌행위，병비단일지수도사회개치취향적영향，경가능시수도개인인소（사회개치취향）여기타사회인소（비여，사회거리）적공동조절，병차재저일과정중개체회근거결책후반궤신식불단적조정자기적행위책략。
Previous studies employing the social game tasks have demonstrated that human cooperation and aggression were affected bythe individual＇s social value orientation. However, the extent of this impact was relatively limited and unstable. According to the behav-ioral dynamics view, our behaviors are impacted by interaction of personality and social situation. Social distance is a kind of social situ-ation, and is proved to affect our social cognition and behaviors. However, it is still unclear how cooperation and aggression are modula-ted by social value orientation and social distance. In order to address this issue, we use the chicken game to explore how social value orientation and social distance interactively im-pacted our social game behaviors in the present study. Subjects with different social value orientations （prosocial vs. proself） were re-cruited, and were arranged to play the chicken game with their friend and a stranger （ lab assistants） through the networked computer. The percentage of selecting cooperation was entered into a 2 （SVO Prosocial, Proself） ~ 2 （Social distance： Friend, Stranger）ANOVA test. The results indicated that the main effect of social distance was significant, that is, participants selected more cooperationwith the friend than with the stranger. More importantly, there was a significant interaction effect between SVO and social distance. Thetest of the simple effect showed that only prosocial participants selected more cooperation with the friend than with the stranger, and thecooperative percentage was not different in proself participants. The mean response time （RT） of selecting cooperation and aggressionwere entered into a 2 （SVO： prosocial, proself） x 2 （Social distance： Friend, Stranger） 2 （Selection strategy： Cooperation, Ag-gression） ANOVA test. There was a significant interaction effect between SVO and selection strategy, indicating that the mean RT of se-lecting cooperation was longer than the mean RT of selecting aggression in prosocial participants, but not in proself participants. In ad-dition, for investigating the potential influence of outcome feedback on ongoing decision - making, we calculated the ratio of selectingcooperation and aggression associated with each kind of outcome. The results indicated that the feedback type affected the cooperativeand aggressive behaviors, participants were more likely to select cooperation when the feedback indicating the opponent selected cooper-ation. In conclusion, the results of this study support the idea that human cooperative and aggressive behaviors are not simply influencedby social value orientation, and probably are modulated by the interaction of social value orientation and other social situation, such associal distance.