STUDY OF TAKING MORE FROM A CLOSE OTHER--论文代写范文精选

六十三名芝加哥大学本科生坐在一个共同区域，参与了这项研究。参与者开始回忆过去的同性朋友，确保他们的参与和提供信息的真实性,参与者列出他们的朋友，然后进入抽奖活动获得奖励。下面的report代写范文进行研究。

Abstract
  The Study tested whether people would be more likely to take from a close versus a distant other. We asked participants to recall a friend, manipulated the perceived closeness toward the friend, and then asked them to choose between a chocolate truffle sampling package that provided larger self-benefit and one that provided larger other benefit. These choices were consequential; some participants received their selected package. We ensured the selfbenefiting package also increased the total benefit (a precondition for the friendly taking effect) and predicted that, compared to those in the distant condition, participants in the close condition would be more likely to choose the option that provided the larger self-benefit, taking more for themselves at the expense of the other.

  Method 
  This study employed a one-factor (closeness), two-level (close vs. distant) between-participants design. Sixty-three University of Chicago undergraduate students (28 men, 35 women) who sat in a common area participated in the study. Participants began by recalling the last same-sex friend they ran into before taking the study and wrote down that person’s initials. To ensure their involvement and the authenticity of information they provided, participants read they and the friend they listed would be entered into a raffle to win a reward. Next, we adopted the procedure by Fitzsimons and Kay (2004; see also Sela, Wheeler, and Sarial-Abi 2012) to manipulate perceived closeness: we asked participants to write five sentences to describe their relationship with the friend they recalled, in the format of either “We . . .” (close condition) or “He/She and I . . .” (distant condition). 

  We provided one example in each condition: “We met each other on the school bus” (close condition) or “He/she and I met each other on the school bus” (distant condition). Previous research has shown that this manipulation reliably influences closeness (Fitzsimons and Kay 2004). Participants then read that if they won the raffle, they would have an opportunity to sample gourmet chocolate truffles in our lab later that quarter with the friend they had listed. They further read that several different types of gourmet chocolate truffles would be available, all rated very positively by consumers, and that because the experimenters were interested in the tasting experience of sampling different combinations, they created two types of sampling experiences: 
Package “A” (self-benefiting/higher total benefit): “7 truffles for yourself and 3 truffles for your friend (10 truffles in total).” 
Package “B” (other-benefiting/lower total benefit): “2 truffles for yourself and 4 truffles for your friend (6 truffles in total).”

  The package labels—self-benefiting, other-benefiting, higher total benefit and lower total benefit—were not shown to participants either here or in subsequent studies. The self-benefiting package allowed the participant to take a significantly larger share of the truffles at the expense of the other, and the other-benefiting package provided a slightly larger other-benefit at the expense of the self. Participants then read they would not be able to share the chocolate truffles during the sampling phase of the experiment. We added this stipulation so participants would not choose the option with the larger total benefit because they were planning to share the windfall with the other participant. So although the self-benefiting option provided a larger total benefit, participants would not be able to redistribute the additional value. Participants then made a choice and received the raffle ticket for their selected sampling package.

  Results and Discussion
  As predicted, more participants in the close condition (63%; 20/32) chose the self-benefiting sampling package than in the distant condition (35%; 11/31; v2 (1) ¼ 4.60, p ¼ .032). That is, participants were more likely to take away a little benefit from a close other rather than a distant other in order to get a lot more benefit for themselves. Results from study 1 confirmed our basic hypothesis that people are more likely to take from close others as compared to distant others. We believe this effect emerged because close others were more focused on the total amount of resources the self and other receive, which was larger in the self-benefiting package. However, expectation of future reciprocity might also explain our effect (Converse and Fishbach 2012). Specifically, participants may have taken more from close others because, in naturally occurring relationships, people have more opportunities to interact and reciprocate with close others in the future. Although close relationships do not necessarily mean more anticipated reciprocity, and might actually suppress exchange norms (Clark and Mills 1979, 1993), nevertheless, in study 2, we more explicitly ruled out this alternative by manipulating closeness between participants and an anonymous confederate with whom they would not expect any future interaction.论文代写)

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。论文代写)
  更多report代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有report代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)