大牛论文网_专业的硕士博士毕业论文网站
您当前位置:

贫困心态对合作行为的影响研究

来源: 原创 发布时间:2021-10-26 16:19
论文地区:中国 论文语言:中文 论文类型:论文摘要

      在职硕士论文是大牛论文网重点更新的一个板块,每天不同专业的在职硕士论文范文给大家参考学习,本论文范文是从贫困心态对合作行为的影响研究展开探讨与分析,贫困的个体在生活中遇到问题时容易联想到经济层面上,感觉到钱不够花,经历更多权衡和取舍。 

  摘 要 :贫困心态是一种主观感觉金钱不能够满足自身需要的心理状态,是稀缺心态的一种表现形式。贫困的个体在生活中遇到问题时容易联想到经济层面上,感觉到钱不够花,经历更多权衡和取舍。相关研究表明,贫困会通过心理渠道强化贫困本身,例如物质稀缺导致负面的情绪和压力,进一步会影响个体的行为和偏好,从而导致个体难以摆脱贫困的状态,造成贫困循环,对个体的影响深远。回顾以往研究,验证了稀缺心态(食物、金钱等匮乏所导致的一种心态)对认知、自我控制、经济决策和借贷行为等造成负面影响。此外,研究还发现稀缺心态对个体的信任、合作等方面也会产生影响。但是目前很少有学者直接探究贫困心态对合作行为的影响。合作行为是人类所有社会行为的核心,也是一种社会决策,选择合作就需要个体付出一定的代价来造福他人,使得他人获益。

  因此,有必要探究贫困心态和合作行为的关系以及内在影响机制究竟是怎样的。理论上,拓展了贫困理论的研究,将贫困心态与贫困本身作区分,并明确对合作行为的影响方向;在实践上,可以帮助我们了解贫困心态,改变对贫困群体的偏见,并促进他们的合作行为,为实现心理脱贫,摆脱物质贫困提供建议和帮助。基于以上观点,本研究采用问卷和行为实验相结合的方式,分段探究贫困心态对合作行为的影响及其可能的影响路径。

  研究一采用情境问卷启动被试的贫困心态,探究贫困心态与公共物品游戏中的合作行为的关系;研究二通过情境问卷启动被试贫困心态,探究贫困心态是否促进被试的直觉思维;研究三通过概念启动操纵,启动被试的直觉或分析思维,探究直觉思维对合作行为的影响以及这种影响效果是否与贫困心态对合作行为的影响方向一致。

  最终的实验结果表明:

  1.启动贫困心态的被试比启动非贫困心态的被试在公共物品游戏中表现出更多合作行为,以客观的家庭经济情况划分的贫困与否并不影响个体的合作行为。

  2.贫困心态的启动引发被试的直觉思维,增加了个体在后续的认知测验和决策中对直觉选择的依赖。

  3.概念操纵启动直觉思维的被试比启动分析思维的被试在公共物品游戏中表现出更多合作行为。

  因此,本研究表明贫困心态会消耗个体的认知资源,促进直觉思维,而依赖直觉思维的个体在公共物品游戏中则更加合作,一种可能的路径是:贫困心态-直觉思维-合作。

  实验考察贫困心态下被试的合作行为,也验证了前人关于直觉促进合作的观点。

  关键词 :   贫困心态;合作行为;直觉思维  。

  Abstract :The poverty mindset is a mental state that feels that money cannot meet one's needs, andit is also a form of scarcity thinking. Since the poor often see an economic dimension ineveryday experiences, feel that the money is not enough to spend and thinking about tradeoffssignificantly more often. Relevant studies have shown that poverty reinforces itself throughpsychological channels. For example, the scarcity mentality can affect individual behavior,which makes it difficult for individuals to get rid of poverty and has a profound impact onindividuals. Previous studies have verified the scarcity mentality has a negative impact oncognition, self-control, decision-making and borrowing behavior. Also, the research foundthat the scarcity mentality has an impact on the trust and cooperation of individuals. However,few studies have directly explored the impact of the poverty mindset on cooperative behavior.

  Cooperation is the core of human social behavior. Choosing to cooperate requires individualsto pay a personal price to benefit others. It is very important to explore the relationshipbetween the two. In theory, it can expand the research of poverty theory, distinguish povertymindset from poverty itself, and clarify the influence direction on cooperative behavior. Inpractice, it can help us understand poverty mindset, change the prejudice against poor groups,and promote their cooperative behavior, so as to help us get rid of poverty psychologically.

  With such a problem, this study uses a combination of questionnaires and experiments toexplore the impact of the poverty mindset on cooperation behavior and its path of influence.

  Study one uses the context questionnaire to activate the participants? povertymindset andexplores the relationship between poverty mindset and cooperative behavior in one-off publicgoods games; study two uses the context questionnaire to activate the participants? povertymindsetwhether it promotes the subjects? intuitive thinking; study three passes Concept startmanipulation, exploring whether the influence of intuitive thinking on cooperation behavioris consistent with the influence of the poverty mindset on cooperation.

1.png

  The final experimental results show:

  1. Participants with the poverty mindset are more cooperative than those with thenon-poverty mindset. Objective poverty could not affect the individual's cooperativebehavior.

  2. The initiation of the poverty mindset triggers intuitive thinking and increases relianceon intuitive choices in CRT test and decision-making.

  3. Participants who started intuitive thinking were more cooperative than those whostarted analytical thinking.

  Therefore, this study shows that the poverty mindset consumes individual cognitiveresources and promotes intuitive thinking. Individuals who rely on intuitive thinking are morecooperative in public goods games. One possible path: poverty mindset-intuitivethinking-cooperative behavior. It not only examines the cooperative behavior of the subjectsunder the poverty mindset, but also verifies the predecessor's view on intuition to promotecooperation.

  Key Words :      Poverty mindset; Cooperative behavior; Intuitive thinking  。

  引 言 

  贫困是影响亿万中国民众的问题,也是亟待解决的全球性问题。贫困是一种相对或绝对的物质资源匮乏状态,对个体和整个社会的影响是长远的。众多研究显示,贫困可能会损害个体的情绪、认知能力和行为等,进而影响心理健康和生理健康。此外,贫困不仅仅是缺钱,还包括与贫困相关的持续、日常的艰难选择对个体心理和社会资源进行“征税”,导致个体做出不明智的决策行为,陷入贫困循环的怪圈。例如,每年都会有数以亿计的家长面临着孩子的入学问题,高收入的父母可能会思考让孩子去哪所学校,或者参加哪些课外兴趣班。然而对那些低收入家庭的父母来说,却没有选择的余地,只能权衡到底要不要送孩子上学。而后,有学者认为对决策的影响不仅仅只是因为收入低,钱不够,更重要的原因是金钱稀缺导致的贫困心态的影响(Mullainathan & Shafir,2013),并且根据相关研究,参与经济决策实验的被试中所谓“穷人”和“富人”并没有什么差别,只不过是由于实验者的分配或大或小的预算而使得他们自我感觉到“穷”或“富”(Shah, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2012)。也正因此,我们不能将短视的结果归结为他们的性格特征或是缺乏理解能力。思考贫困背景下的决策,并分析为什么会这样做是非常必要的。

  近年来学术界的关注点主要集中在贫困对经济决策方面的影响,如贫困与时间折扣、风险偏好的关系,解释为何穷人借贷过多而储蓄较少,对卫生和教育的投资远远不足等等。因为当一个人在管理稀缺的资源时,就需要非常的小心谨慎,他们没有犯错的资本。这种关于成本和金钱的想法,容易形成心理联想,变成一种精神上的挑战,产生认知负荷,导致分析思维能力降低,更依赖直觉,做出不明智的决定。目前关于贫困心态对合作行为的影响研究很少。人是时刻都处在社会当中的,是一切社会关系的总和,人们社会行为的核心就是合作,合作又涉及到自我控制和未来投资等要素。贫困心态对合作行为的影响是怎样的,影响的内在路径是否与贫困心态影响经济决策的路径一致,这也是本研究需要进一步探究的问题。

  心理学和经济学的研究表明,贫穷会使人产生一种特定的心态,特别是穷人会受到“当前偏见”的影响,根据这种偏见,他们往往比没有长期生活在不利条件下的人更不重视未来。经历贫困的人可能不太倾向于参与合作行为,因为他们可能会放弃合作的未来利益,或者做出他们无法维持的承诺。此外,贫困也可能影响预期:穷人可能被认为是不太可靠的合作伙伴,并且他们可能参与合作努力的机会较少(Schaub, Gereke, &Baldassarri,  2020 ),因为其他人预计穷人更有现实倾向,并会相应地采取行动(Bechtel & Scheve, 2017)。然而,根据相关研究表明,通过招募大学生参与一次性的经济游戏(独裁者游戏)的实验研究表明,主观感知自己社会地位低的个体比社会阶层高的个体付出更多,在游戏中更合作,更亲社会(Piff et al., 2010)。Peterson等人(2015)的研究表明饥饿的参与者为获得社会福利,比对照组被试表现出更高的合作行为。与此相反,通过情境回忆任务操纵引起某种资源的稀缺(如食物、金钱等),激活了与竞争导向有关的认知,产生竞争的行为,促进了被试提高自身福利(Roux,Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015;Grossman & Mendoza, 2003),并且某种资源越是稀缺,冲突与竞争行为在群体之间会越明显(Prediger, Vollan, & Herrmann, 2014)。Aksoy 和Palma(2019)通过田野实验证明稀缺状态(通过诱导后更直观的一种思维)消除了独裁者游戏中的亲社会行为的群体偏好,可能的解释是稀缺状态引发的直觉思维影响个人的群体认同感。Cerutti 和 Schlueter(2016)则认为,不同程度的资源稀缺对个体合作行为的影响没有很大差异,因为无论是稀缺还是丰富资源下,个体的表现都是不合作的、自私的。

  由于上述众多研究结果的不一致,同时合作的情境更为复杂,结合现下量化合作行为的主要范式即公共物品游戏,来探究贫困心态对个体的合作行为的影响就很有必要。

  此外,结合众多学者关于认知负荷、直觉思维促进或抑制合作的研究发现(Rand,Greene,& Nowak, 2012; Schulz, Fischbacher, Th?ni, & Utikal, 2014;Van den Bos, Peters,Bobocel, & Ybema, 2006;Benjamin, Brown, & Shapiro, 2013;Cornelissen, Dewitte,Warlop, & Yzerbyt, 2007),为贫困心态对合作行为的影响提供了可能的路径。因此,本研究先探索贫困心态影响合作行为是否存在影响,若有影响,那么影响的方向是怎样的,再验证直觉思维是否是贫困心态影响合作行为的内在路径,一方面可以帮助我们理清贫困与贫困心态之间的联系和区别,考察贫困心态对合作行为的影响方向,加强对稀缺理论的理解;另一方面可以为我国在贫困治理中加强心理扶贫提供建议。

  第1章   文献综述

  1.1、贫困.

  1.1.1、贫困的概念

  1.1.2、贫困的测量

  1.1.3、贫困的相关研究

  1.2、贫困心态

  1.2.1、稀缺思维的概念

  1.2.2、贫困心态的概念

  1.2.3、贫困心态的测量.

  1.2.4、贫困心态的相关研究

  1.3、合作行为.

  1.3.1、 合作行为的概念.

  1.3.2、合作行为的相关理论

  1.3.3、合作行为的研究范式.

  1.4、贫困心态与合作行为

  1.5、贫困心态与直觉思维

  1.6、直觉思维与合作行为

  第2章   问题提出与研究设计

  2.1、问题提出

  2.2、研究假设

  2.3、研究设计

  2.4、研究意义

  第3章   贫困心态促进合作行为

  3.1、研究目的

  3.2、研究方法.

  3.2.1 、研究对象

  3.2.2、研究设计

  3.2.3、研究工具

  3.2.3、研究程序

  3.3、结果分析.

  3.3.1、贫困心态的操纵检验

  3.3.2、情绪变量的检验,

  3.3.3、合作行为分析.

  3.4、讨论.

  第4章   贫困心态促进直觉思维

  4.1、研究目的

  4.2、研究方法.

  4.2.1、研究对象

  4.2.2、研究设计.

  4.2.3、研究工具

  4.2.4、研究程序

  4.3、结果分析.

  4.3.1、贫困心态的操纵检验.

  4.3.2、控制变量的检验

  4.3.3、参照点任务分析.

  4.3.4 、CRT 成绩分析.

  4.4、讨论.

  第5章   直觉思维增加合作行为

  5.1、研究目的

  5.2、研究方法.

  5.2.1、研究对象

  5.2.2、研究设计

  5.2.3、研究工具

  5.2.4、研究程序

  5.3、结果分析.

  5.3.1、PGG反应时分析.

  5.3.2、合作行为分析.

  5.4、讨论.

  第6章   总讨论

  第 7 章   结 论

  本文在以往学者们的研究基础上,通过一定的文献分析和操纵实验以及公共物品游戏范式等方法,探究贫困心态对合作行为的影响,及其可能的影响机制。研究表明,暂时启动贫困心态会增加被试的合作行为,而贫困生与非贫困生在公共物品游戏中捐献值没有显着差异,但是相对而言,贫困生被试的捐献值更高,比非贫困生被试表现得更合作。贫困心态启动的个体在后续的认知反应测试中更多依赖直觉思维,而直觉思维启动的被试在公共物品游戏中更合作。

  本研究的具体结论如下:

  (1)启动贫困心态影响个体的合作行为,贫困心态组被试比非贫困心态组被试更合作。

  (2)启动贫困心态后促进被试直觉思维。贫困心态组被试的认知能力测试得分相较非贫困心态组更低,参照点任务更加依赖直觉。

  (3)直觉思维增加个体的合作水平。

  参考文献.

  安其梅,吴红. (2015). 认知负荷理论综述.认知负荷理论综述.心理科学进展, 5, 50-55.

  管健,金淑娴。(2019). 社会困境中合作行为的阶层差异:自我与他人的双重视角.心理科学, (4),920-927.

  林崇德. (2003). 心理学大辞典.上海:.上海教育出版社.

  林闽钢. (1994). 国外关于贫困程度测量的研究综述。经济学动态7,74-76.

  邱林,郑雪,王雁飞. (2008).积极情感消极情感量表(panas)的修订.应用心理学14(3), 249-254.

  孙时进,徐斐. (2019).“贫穷感”对个体生存策略和风险决策的影响.西南民族大学学报, 40(01), .204-210. .

  王萍萍,徐鑫,郝彦宏. (2015). 中国农村贫困标准问题研究.调研世界, 8, 3-8.

  徐富明,黄龙,张慧,相鹏,刘腾飞,李亚红. (2020). 行为贫困陷阱的心理机制与管理对策:基于认知与动机双视角、心理科学进展, 28(5),681-691.

  徐富明,张慧,马红宇,邓颖,史燕伟,李欧. (2017). 贫困问题:基于心理学的视角.心理科学进展,25(8), 1431- 1440.

  徐斐,孙时进. (2019). 心理贫穷感对决策的影响.心理学探新, 39( 6), 540-548.

  张彦驰. (2019). 贫因心态对经济决策的影响及其心理机制(博士).华中师范大学.

  张慧,张凡(1999).认知负荷理论综述。教育研究与实验,(4) ,45-47.

  Adamkovic, M. (2020). Conscquences of poverty on cconomic deci sion -making: Assessing theveni similitude of the cognitive mechanism. Frontiers in psychology, 11,171.

  Adamkovic, M, & Martoncik, M. (2017). A revicw of conscquences of poverty on cconomicdecision-making: A hypothesized model of a cognitive mechani sm. F rontiers in Psychology, 8, 1784.

  Adler, N. E, Epcl, E. s., asllazzo, G, & Ickovics, J. R. ( 2000).Rclation ship of subjcctive and objcctivesocial status with psycbological and phy siological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy whitc

  Alcm,Y.Kohin, G.,& Stagc, J. (2014). The persistence of subjective poverty in urban Ethiopia. WorldDeve lopment, 56, 5161.

  Aquino, K, & Reed, A. (1998). A social dilemma perspective on coopcrative bchavior inorganizations.Group & Organization Management, 23(4), 390-413.

  Bago, B., & De Ncys, W. (2017). Fast logic: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory.Cognition, 158. 90-109.

  Banker, S, Bhanot, s. P., & Deshpande, A. (2020) Poverty identity and preference for challenge: E videncefrom the US and India.Jourmal of Economic Psychology,76, 102-214.

  Bartlett, M. Y, & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and Prosocial Bchavior: Helping When It Costs You.Psychological Science, 17(4),319- -325.

  Bartos, V., Baucr, M., Chytilovi, J, & Levely, I. 2018). Effcts of Poverty on Impaticnce: Preferences orIn atention? SSRN Electronic Journal. 108(623), 1-84.

  Baumcister, R. F, & Heatherton, T. F (1996). Seclf-rcgulation failure: An overvicw. Psychological Inquiry,7, 1-15.

  Baumeistcr,R. F, Vohs, K. D., & Tce, D. M. (2007). The strength modclof sclf-control.Curent Directionsin Psychological Science, 16, 351-355.

  Bechtel, M. M., & Scheve, K. 2017). Who coopcrates? Recipocity and the causal ffct of expcctedcooperation in repre scnt ative samples. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(03), 206-228.

  Benjamin, D. J, Brown S. A, & Shapira, J. M. (2013). Who is "behavioral? C ognitive abilty andanomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Asscition, 11(6), 1231-1255.

  Carr, S. C, & Sloan, T. S. 2003).Powerty cand Psychology: Springer US.

  Cormelisscn, G, Dewittc, S, & Warlop, L. (2011). Are social valuc oricnt ations expressed automatically?

  Decision making in the dictator gamc. Personality and Social Psychology Buletin, 37(8), 1080-1090.

  Comclissn, G, Dewittc, S, Warlop, L, & Yzerbyt, V. (2007 ). Whatever pcoplc say I am, that's what I am:

  Social labeling as a social markcting tool. Intermational Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(4),27 8288.

  Dang, J, Xiao, S, Zhang, T, Liu, Y.,Jiang, B, & Mao, L. (2016). When the poor cxcel: Poverty facilitatesprocedural leaming. Scandinavicn Journal of Psychology 57(4), 288-29 1.

  Deck, C, & Jahedi, S. (2015). The cfect of∞ognitivc load on cconomic decision making A survey andnew expcriments. European Economic Review, 78, 97-1 19.

  D eSteno, D. (2009). Social Emotions and Intertemporal Choice:“H ot" Me chani sms for Building Socialand Economic C apital. Curent Directions in Psycho logical Science, 18(5), 280-284.

  Dzuka, J, B abincak, P, Kacmarova, M., Mikulaskova, G, & Martoncik, M. (2017). Subjcctive cau scs andpsychological conscqucnces of poverty: an overvicw. Cesk. Psychol. 61(1), 58-67.

  Ellis, L. (1988). Criminal bchavior and rK sclection: An cxtension of genc-basad evolutionary thcory.Personality and Individual Differences, 9(4), 697-708.

  Engel de Abrcu, P. M, Abreu, N, Nikacdo, C. C, Puglis, M. L, Tourinbo, C. J Miranda, M. C... &Martin, R. (2014). Excutive functioning and reading achievement in school: a study of Brazilian .

  children asessed by their teachers as“poor readers”. Frontiers in psychology,5, 550.

  Evans,J.S. B. 2008). Dul-procssing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. An Rev.Psychol, 59, 255278.

  Evans,J. S. B. (20 10). Intuition and reasoning: A dual proccss perspcctivc. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4),313-326.

  Evans, G W., & Cassells, R. C. (2013). Childhood Poverty, Cumulative Risk Exposurc, and Mcental Healthin Emcrging Adults. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(3),287-296.

  Frankenhuis, W. E, & de Weerth, C. (2013). Docs Early-Life Exposure to Stress Shape or ImpairCognition? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5)

  Mittal, C, & Griskevicius, V. (2014). s ense of contr ol under uncertainty depends on people's childlhoodcnvironment: A lifc hi story thcory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4),

  Mittal, C, Griskevicius, V, Simpson,J. A., Sung, S., & Young, ES. (20 15). Cognitive Adaptations toStressful Environments: W hen Childhood Adversity Enhances Adult Exccutive Function. Journal ofPersonaliy cnd Social Psychology. 109,604-621.

  Nelson, L. D, & Morison, E. L. (2005). The symptoms of resource searcity: Judgments of food andfinances influcnce prcferenccs for potential partners. Psychological science, 16(2), 167-173.

  Paas, F. G. W. C. and Van Merrienbocr,J. G. ( 1994). Instructional control of∞ognitive load in the trainingof complcx cognitivc tasks Educ. Psychol Rew 6, 351-371.

  Pavlakis, A. E, Noble, K, Pavlakis, s. G, Ali, N, & Frank, Y. (201 5). Brain imaging andclectrophysiology biomarkers: is there a role in poverty and cducation outcome rescarch? PediatricNeurology, 52(4), 383-388.

  Pcterscn, M. B., & Aarye, L. (2015). Birth weight and social trust in adulthood: cvidencc for carlycalibration of social cognition. Psychological Science, 26, 168 1-1692.

  Pilf,P. K, Kraus, M. w, Cote, s., Cheng, B. H, & Kcltner, D. (20 10). Having less, giving more: Theinflucnce of social class on prosocial bchavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99(5),771-784.

  Poreli, A. J , and Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking infinancial deai sion making. Psychology Science. 20, 278- 283.

  Rand, D. G, Grecnc,J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontancous giving and calculated greed. Natune,489(7416), 427 430.

  Rand, D. G. & Nowak, MA. (2013) Human Coopcration. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8),413-425.

  Ratcau, P, Moliner, P, Guimelli, C, & Abric, J. C. (2011). Social representation thcory. Handbook oftheories of 'social psychology, 2, 477-497.

  Rcutter, L. L, Stewart, M. J, Veen stra, G, Love, R. Raphacl, D., & Mak warimba, E. (2009). "Who do theythink we arc, anyway?": perceptions of and responscs to poverty stigma. Qualitative health research,19(3), 297- -311.

  Roch, S. G, Lanc,J. A, Samuclson, C. D.. Allison, s. T, & Dent, J. L. (2000). Cognitive load and thecqu ality heuristic: A two-stage modcl of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organizationalbehavior and human decision processes, 83(2), 185-212.

  Rojas, M. (2008). Expericnced poverty and income poverty in Mexio: A subjcctive well-bcing approach.World Deve lopment, 36(6), 1078-1093.

  Roux, C., Gold smith, K, & Bonczzi, A. (20 15). On the psychbology of sarcity: W hen reminders ofresource sc arcity promote sclfish (and gencrous) bchavior. Joumal ofcons umer research, 42(4),615-631.

  Rowe, C, Gunicr, R, Bradman, A, Harley, K. G, Kogut, K., Parra, K, & E skcnazi, B. (20 l6). Residentialproximity to organophosphate and carbamatc pesticide usc during pregnancy, poverty duringchildbood, and cognitive functioning in l0-ycar old children. Environmental research, 150, 128-137.

  Rowntree Benjamin .S (1901 ).Poverty: A Studly ofTown Life London: Macmillan.

  Shah, A. K, Shafir, E.. & Mullainathan, S. (201 5). Scarcity frames valuc. Psychological science, 26(4),402-412.

  Shah, A. K, Zhao, J, Mullainathan, s, & Shafir, E. (2018). Moncy in the mental livcs of the poor. socialCognition, 36(1), 4-19.

  Spiller, S. A. (201 I). Opportunity c∞ost consider ation. Journal ofConsumer Research, 38(4), 595-6 10.

  Stanovich, Keith E. and Richard F West. 2000 . Individual Differences in Reasoning Implications for theRati onality D ebate?" Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(5), 645- -665.

  Sweller, J, Van Merricnbocr, J.J, & Paas, F. G. ( 1998). Cognitive architecture and in structional design.

  Educationalpsychology review, 10(3), 251 -296.

  Toplak, M. E, Wes, R. F, & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Asessing miserly information procssings Anexpan sion of the Cognitivc Relfection Test. Thinking & Reasoning 20(2), 147-168.

  Travers, E.. Rolison, J. J., and Feency, A. (20 I6). The time course of conflict on the cognitive rfelctionotcst. Cognition .150, 109-118.

  Trivers, R. L. ( 1971). The cvolution of reciprocal altrui sm. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.

  T versky, A, & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A recferencc -dependent model. Thequarterly. joumal ofeconomics, 106(4), 1039 -1061.

  Vamn den Bos, K., Peters, S. L, Boboccl, D. R, & Ybema,J. F. (2006). On prefcrences and doing the nightthing: S ati sfaction with advantagcous incquity whcn cognitive procc sing is limited. JournalofExperimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 273-289.

  Vohs, K. D. (2013). The poar's poor mental power. Science 341, 969 -970.

  Vohs, K. D, Mead, N. L, & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological con scquences of moncy. science,314(5802), 1154-1156.

 
作者单位:闽南师范大学
原文出处:朱海燕. 贫困心态对合作行为的影响研究[D].闽南师范大学,2021.