ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办:中国心理学会
   中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (8): 1437-1451.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1437 cstr: 32110.14.2025.1437

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

提异议者高估异议接收者的消极反应

陈宇琦, 陆静怡   

  1. 华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院, 上海 200062
  • 收稿日期:2024-04-07 发布日期:2025-05-22 出版日期:2025-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 陆静怡, E-mail: jylu@psy.ecnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(72171087)、上海市教育发展基金会和上海市教育委员会“曙光计划” (22SG25)、中央高校基本科研业务费项目(2022QKT007、2022ECNU-XWK-XK003)资助

Misunderstanding interpersonal costs from expressing opposing views

CHEN Yuqi, LU Jingyi   

  1. School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
  • Received:2024-04-07 Online:2025-05-22 Published:2025-08-25

摘要: 多样化观点有助于提高决策质量。然而, 当与他人意见相左时, 人常避免表达自己的观点。本研究(N = 2, 094)揭示一种全新的预测偏差: 提异议者高估异议接收者的消极反应。研究将被试随机分为提异议者和异议接收者, 提异议者预测自己提异议后接收者的反应, 接收者报告自己的实际反应。结果表明, 提异议者高估接收者的负性情绪、对提异议者的负性评价以及与提异议者的负性关系。研究通过测量被试的关注点揭示导致此错误预测的原因: 提异议者比接收者更多关注提异议伤害接收者自尊, 而非给接收者提供信息价值。提示提异议者更充分地考虑信息价值可以减轻这种错误预测。本研究拓展了人际交流中的预测偏差研究; 为鼓励谈话双方表达不同意见提供可行方法, 使人从多样化观点中获益。

关键词: 预测偏差, 沟通, 分歧, 人际伤害, 判断与决策

Abstract: The expression of diverse opinions is essential for high-quality decision making. Why then do people avoid expressing their views when they disagree with others? Our study (N = 2, 094) explored a potential interpersonal barrier to express opposition and revealed a misprediction that opposition expressers overestimated the interpersonal costs of stating an opposing view to recipients. This misprediction arises because opposition expressers pay more attention to the self-esteem threat (vs. information value) experienced by recipients than the recipients do.
In Studies 1 and 2, the opposition expressers expressed opposing views after the recipients expressed their opinions. The opposition expressers then predicted the recipients’ reactions on recipients’ feelings, impressions, and relationship with them, and the recipients then evaluated their actual reactions. The results showed that opposition expressers overestimated recipients’ negative reactions.
In Study 3, we ruled out the social-desirability explanation that recipients pretended to be open to diverse views by setting a third-person recipient condition, in which they received the expressers’ opposition together with another recipient. We found that the opposition expressers’ predictions were still more negative than the third-person recipients’ ratings, which reflected that the mispredictions we found persisted in the absence of social desirability.
In Studies 4a and 4b, we found that such overestimations occurred only when an opposition was stated by examining a situation in which an agreement was stated as a comparison.
In Study 5, we explored the mechanism of this misprediction by measuring the focus on self-esteem threat and the focus on information value, and whether the two foci mediated the misprediction that we found. The results showed that opposition expressers focused more on self-esteem threat and focused less on information value than recipients did, and that such difference in foci mediated the misprediction made by opposition expressers.
Study 6 further examined our mechanism by designing a theoretically driven debiasing intervention and tested its effectiveness. We found that prompting opposition expressers to consider the information value that may be experienced by recipients can help them predict the consequences of raising opposing views more accurately.
Together, our research shows that opposition expressers overestimate the negative interpersonal consequences of raising their view, which may hinder people from stating opposing views. We also find that this misprediction arises because opposition expressers pay more attention to self-esteem threat (vs. information value) that may be experienced by recipients than the recipients do. Besides, we developed a simple but effective approach to correct this misprediction. Theoretically, our research extends research on mispredictions in interpersonal communication. Practically, our research provides a feasible approach for promoting people to raise their opposing views.

Key words: misprediction, communication, disagreement, interpersonal harm, judgment and decision-making

中图分类号: