Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice--论文代写范文精选

在这种情况下,他们的选择涉及到利益的考虑，他们得到的好处。在这篇心理essay代写范文研究中,我们研究消费者选择消费,提供更多自我利益，提供另一个好处。下面的essay代写范文进行阐述。

Abstract
  This research documents “the friendly taking effect” in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people’s preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7). 
Keywords: choice for self and other together, interpersonal closeness, self-other overlap, total benefit

  Consumers frequently choose consumption packages for the self and other together, jointly considering the benefits for both. For example, they decide which airline to fly with for a joint trip so that both they and others will receive mileage benefits. Or when selecting gifts for others, consumers sometimes receive bonuses that hinge on which gift they buy. Under these circumstances, their choice again involves consideration of both the benefit their gift recipient gets (from the gift) and the benefit they get (from the bonus). Consumption packages are not created equal— some provide greater self-benefit and some provide greater other-benefit. In addition, consumption packages vary by the total benefits for the self and the other. In this research, we study consumers choosing between a consumption package that offers significantly more selfbenefit and a consumption package that offers slightly more other-benefit. In this situation the self-benefiting package also offers greater total benefits. Building on research on interpersonal closeness.

  We explore the possibility that consumers would be more likely to choose a self-benefiting package when the other person is close rather than distant. In other words, consumers would be more likely to take away some benefit from a close (as opposed to distant) other in exchange for a lot more benefit for themselves. We base our prediction on research showing that closeness is characterized by mentally representing the self and other as a selfother collective (Aron et al. 1991; Cialdini et al. 1997), rather than separate entities, and we argue that closeness would lead to a greater concern for the total benefit for this self-other collective, which in turn increases preference for the self-benefiting package when it also offers greater benefit in total. We dub this effect “the friendly taking effect” because an inherently friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit; a we-oriented intention) underlies this overt taking behavior.

  INTERPERSONAL CLOSENESS: WHEN YOU AND I BECOME “WE” 
  Interpersonal closeness is a multifaceted construct that has a variety of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive consequences. For example, at the behavioral level, closeness is revealed as the frequency and diversity of interactions (Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto 1989). At the emotional level, closeness is shown as an increased liking of the relationship partner (Rubin 1970). At the cognitive level, closeness manifests as the overlapped mental representation of self and other (Aron et al. 1991) that goes by various names in the literature, including self-other merging (Batson et al. 1997), cognitive interdependence (Kelley and Thibaut 1978), and oneness (Cialdini et al. 1997). Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992) measured the self-other overlap via a set of Venn-like diagrams, each of which consists of two circles—one representing the self and one representing the other—that overlap to different degrees, from not at all to completely. 

  The closer someone feels to a relationship partner, the more heavily overlapped circles they choose, revealing a greater degree of perceived overlap between the self and the other. Thus at the cognitive level, closeness blurs the boundary between self and other and makes people more likely to view the self and the other as overlapped entities that are parts of a self-other collective (Aron et al. 1991). The salience of the self-other collective in close relationships could result in mentally sharing each other’s status including traits, knowledge, achievement, and resources. 

  For example, in the seminal work by Aron and colleagues (1991), respondents were slower to identify a trait word that did not describe themselves when it described a close rather than a distant other, suggesting they incorporated more of a close other’s traits into the self. Likewise, Goldstein and Cialdini (2007) found that participants perceived themselves as more caring, sympathetic, and helpful after they observed another person with whom they felt a strong sense of merged identity offering help, again providing evidence that people mentally share the traits of a close other. Furthermore, the heightened sense of the self-other collective also gives people access (actual or illusory) to desirable outcomes of close others, such as information, consumption, knowledge, moral credentials, and success (Kouchaki 2011; Tesser 1988; Tu and Fishbach 2015; Wegner 1987; Wegner, Erber, and Raymond 1991). 

  In addition to sharing a close other’s status mentally, the heightened sense of the self-other collective can also lead people to expect close others to share their own statuses. For example, people egocentrically assume their partners share their own traits and values (Murray et al. 2002). Similarly, in tasks that require perspective taking, people perform worse when the other person is close rather than distant because they have more difficulty realizing the close other does not really have access to their perspective (Savitsky et al. 2011). Together, these results suggest that experiencing self and other as one coherent unit, rather than as separate entities, characterizes interpersonal closeness. It follows that in decision making, increased closeness will result in a greater sense of the self-other collective, which will lead participants to choices that increase the total benefit to the self and other.

  ALLOCATING RESOURCES FOR THE SELF AND THE OTHER 
  The concern for the outcome of the self-other collective in close relationships influences resource-allocation decisions. For example, whereas people are willing to give resources to complete strangers (Batson 1991; Camerer and Thaler 1995), they are much more likely to give them to close others (Clark 1983). Although this increased giving to close others is partially caused by an increased desire to meet the needs of close others and to care about close others’ benefit, it certainly also follows from the increased concern for the self-other collective caused by the blurred self-other boundary, and the perception that “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours.” As Wegner (1980) commented, willingness to give to others may “stem in part from a basic confusion between ourselves and others” (p. 133). Consequently, giving to a close other can feel like giving to the self (Aron et al. 1991; Batson et al. 1997; Cialdini et al. 1997; Clark 1983; Jarymowicz 1992). 

  Indeed, research on communal versus exchange relationships documents that people are less concerned with reciprocity in communal relationships (in which the norm is to give to meet others’ needs, or to show concern for the other person) than in exchange relationships (where the norm is to give with the expectation of getting comparable repayment in the future; Clark and Mills 1979, 1993). Presumably, the blurry selfother boundaries in closer, communal relationships imply people benefit from helping their partner and focus on the total benefit rather than being paid back. We propose that interpersonal closeness might also increase taking from a close other for the same reason it increases giving—a greater concern for the total benefit for the self-other collective. 

Specifically, we predict people should be more likely to take from a close rather than distant other when doing so can increase the total resources for the self-other collective (e.g., if by taking away one chocolate from the other, one can get three chocolates for the self). We dub this effect “the friendly taking effect” because such overt taking behavior is actually rooted in a friendly intention, that is, concern for the total benefit. Notably, because in our paradigm, greater self-benefit is associated with greater total benefit, concern for self, rather than total, could drive choice of the self-benefiting package. Thus the “friendly taking” hypothesis demands two critical tests. First, people should take from their close other only when doing so increases the total benefit. When taking reduces the total benefit, we predict a decrease in taking from—or, stated differently, an increase in giving to—a close other. That is, closeness should lead people to be more willing to give to (not just take from) close others as long as doing so increases the total benefit.（essay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。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)