共查询到18条相似文献,搜索用时 766 毫秒
1.
特征框架效应是指当分别以积极框架和消极框架来描述给定情景中的某一事物或事件的关键特征时,一般情况下人们更偏好以积极框架来描述其关键特征的事物或事件的现象.本研究通过2个实验验证了阈下特征框架效应的存在及其产生机制.实验一发现,阈下特征框架效应只在有时间压力下才会产生.实验二发现,被试对与框架类型一致的词汇判断的反应时比对与框架类型不一致的词汇判断的反应时更快,这在一定程度上说明特征框架效应的产生是因为框架激活了与框架一致性的信息,起到了语义启动的作用,从而导致被试判断任务的评定值偏向该框架类型. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
框架效应是指由于对事物描述方式的改变而引起决策者偏好反转的现象。以权力的接近-抑制理论以及模糊痕迹理论为基础,研究探索了权力感对风险决策框架效应的影响及其发生机制。实验一通过回忆法对170名学生被试进行权力操纵,综合运用四种类型的决策情境,研究考察了权力感与框架效应的关系。结果发现,高权力组被试的框架效应显著,低权力组被试者的框架效应不显著。实验二探讨权力感与框架效应的内在机制。结果发现,信息加工深度中介权力感与框架效应之间的关系 相似文献
6.
7.
在领导力研究领域, 积极领导力通常被视为提升组织、团队和下属产出的关键因素之一。近年来, 上述观点却不断受到质疑。在此背景下, 积极领导力潜在的消极效应日益引起关注, 并逐渐演变成为一个前沿课题。从现有的41项实证研究来看:(1)在研究主题上, 现有研究主要考察了变革、授权、道德、包容和仁慈等行为导向和领导-下属交换等关系导向领导风格的消极效应, 涉及对下属、团队和领导自身三类主体的消极作用; (2)在分析视角上, 主要包括两大类——构建兼具“积极效应”和“消极效应”的模型和单纯只考虑某一领导风格潜在的“消极效应”, 前者可以细分为三类双刃剑效应和两类非线性效应; (3)在理论机制上, 积极领导风格的消极效应可以用社会认定、社会交换、精神分析、认知加工和资源相关理论进行解释。未来研究可着重: (1)形成一个系统解释积极领导消极效应的整合性理论、框架或模型; (2)从领导类型、消极效应表现和作用机制方面进一步进行实证探讨; (3)挖掘积极领导消极效应的边界条件和破解因素, 为实践应用提供启示; (4)开展跨群体和针对特定群体的探讨。 相似文献
8.
认知闭合需要、框架效应与决策偏好 总被引:8,自引:0,他引:8
在带有模糊性的决策情境中,决策者个人的认知特征会对其判断决策产生重要影响。通过实验的方法,考察了认知闭合需要和特征框架效应对个体决策偏好的影响。93名工商管理硕士(MBA)参与了实验,研究的结果支持了本研究的3个假设,即认知闭合需要与特征框架效应不仅对被试的决策偏好存在显著的影响,而且二者还存在显著的交互作用。具体来说,研究发现,在模糊情境中:高认知闭合需要的被试偏好于立刻做出决策,而低认知闭合需要的被试偏好于暂缓做出决策;接收到正向框架信息的被试偏好于立刻做出决策,而接收到负向框架信息的被试偏好于暂缓做出决策;认知闭合需要与特征框架对被试的决策偏好还存在显著的交互作用。研究结论为根据个体认知闭合需要的水平来选拔决策者、利用框架效应来影响个体的信息加工方式进而提高决策质量提供了理论依据 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
12.
Whereas there is extensive documentation that attribute framing influences the content of people’s thought, we generally know less about how it affects the processes assumed to precede those thoughts. While existing explanations for attribute framing effects rely completely on valence-based associative processing, the results obtained in the present study are also consistent with the notion that negative framing stimulates more effortful and thorough information processing than positive framing. Specifically, results from a simulated business decision-making experiment showed that decision makers receiving negatively framed information had significantly better recall than those receiving positively framed information. Furthermore, decision makers in the negative framing condition were less confident than decision makers in the positively framed condition. Finally, compared to a no-framing condition, decision makers receiving positive framing deviated significantly more in evaluation than decision makers receiving negative framing did. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
Eyal Gamliel Hamutal Kreiner Rocio Garcia‐Retamero 《International journal of psychology》2016,51(2):109-116
Previous research has found that objective numeracy moderates framing effects: People who are less numerate were found to be more susceptible to goal‐framing and attribute‐framing effects than people who are highly numerate. This study examined the possibility that subjective numeracy likewise moderates attribute framing in contexts where participants are presented with percentages of success or failure. The results show that compared with highly numerate participants, less numerate participants were more susceptible to the effect of attribute framing. Interestingly, this moderating effect was revealed only when using objective numeracy measures, and not when subjective numeracy measures were used. Future research is suggested to replicate these findings, to establish the generalizability of numeracy as a moderator of other cognitive biases, and to examine several possible theoretical explanations for the differential moderation of attribute‐framing bias. 相似文献
16.
情绪、边框影响决策认知过程的实验研究 总被引:9,自引:0,他引:9
借用问题空间,通过实验探讨情绪、边框对决策认知过程的影响,以进一步考察边框效应的本质特点。结果如下:情绪、边框均独立对决策认知过程产生影响;积极、消极信息导致不同的加工方式;积极信息既利于节省认知资源,又利于作出符合当前环境的决策。 相似文献
17.
《Organizational behavior and human decision processes》1998,76(2):149-188
Accentuate the positive or accentuate the negative? The literature has been mixed as to how the alternative framing of information in positive or negative terms affects judgments and decisions. We argue that this is because different studies have employed different operational definitions of framing and thus have tapped different underlying processes. We develop a typology to distinguish between three different kinds of valence framing effects. First we discuss the standard risky choice framing effect introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) to illustrate how valence affects willingness to take a risk. Then we discuss attribute framing, which affects the evaluation of object or event characteristics, and goal framing, which affects the persuasiveness of a communication. We describe the distinctions, provide a number of examples of each type, and discuss likely theoretical mechanisms underlying each type of framing effect. Our typology helps explain and resolve apparent confusions in the literature, ties together studies with common underlying mechanisms, and serves as a guide to future research and theory development. We conclude that a broader perspective, focused on the cognitive and motivational consequences of valence-based encoding, opens the door to a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of framing effects. 相似文献