决策者角色及相关变量对风险偏好的影响

采用IAT技术测查被试的内隐自尊, 并引入收益和损失两种任务框架, 综合探讨了内隐自尊水平、任务得失框架对自我决策和为他人决策时风险偏好的影响。结果发现：(1)在收益框架下, 被试为他人决策时更冒险, 而在损失框架下, 为自我和他人决策的风险偏好无显著差异; (2)与为自我决策相比, 低内隐自尊者为他人决策时更冒险, 而高内隐自尊者为自我和他人决策的风险偏好无显著差异; (3)内隐自尊水平与任务框架的交互作用及内隐自尊水平、任务框架和决策者角色之间的三级交互作用均不显著。依据相关的理论和发现对这种结果进行了分析和讨论。     

Evaluating Decision Makers: The Role of Choice Congruence and Outcome

Two studies were conducted in which decision makers were evaluated by subjects who had agreed or disagreed with the decision maker's choice. Subjects read one of two vignettes describing the alternatives available to the decision maker, indicated which alternative they personally favored, and then learned about the decision maker's choice and the outcome that occurred. Study 1 varied whether the outcomes of the decision maker's choice were positive or negative, and whether the subject's preferred option matched (congruent choice) or did not match (incongruent choice) that of the decision maker. Subjects rated the extent to which they thought the decision maker was worthy of praise (in the case of positive outcomes) or blame (in the case of negative outcomes), and the decision maker's likableness and competence. Results revealed a strong effect of congruence on attributions of praise and blame: More praise was ascribed to an agreeing decision maker and more blame to a disagreeing decision maker. The degree to which the decision maker was seen as likable was affected by congruence only, whereas perceived competence was influenced by both outcome and congruence. Study 2 addresses some methodological issues that were unresolved in Study 1 and replicated the results of the first study, using new stimulus materials and an expanded set of dependent measures.     

Better to Decide Together: Shared Consumer Decision Making,Perceived Power,and Relationship Satisfaction

Shared consumer decisions, particularly those made with a relationship partner, can be very different from decisions that are made alone. Across multiple studies, we investigate how shared consumer decision making affects perceptions of power and relationship satisfaction. We integrate two streams of research to create a novel theory about consumer decision making and perceived power. Specifically, we suggest that shared consumer decision making combines two necessary components of power—an individual's influence over and a partner's engagement in the decision—and that these combined components drive power perceptions. In other words, individuals who relinquish some control and make a decision with their partner, ironically, perceive having greater power than if they had made the decision alone. We further find that shared decision making and greater perceived power lead to greater satisfaction with the relationship in which the decisions are made. By focusing on consumer decision making within relationships, the current research contributes to the literatures on decision making, social influences in consumer behavior, close relationships, consumer well-being, and power.     

Decision Development in Computer-Assisted Group Decision Making

New computer technologies to aid group communication and decision making are becoming increasingly widespread. This study analyzes how one such technology, a group decision support system (GDSS), affected how group decisions developed over time. The study contrasted decision paths in groups using the GDSS with groups using the same procedural structures incorporated in the GDSS manually and with groups using no procedural structures. A flexible phase mapping method was employed to map group decision paths. The resulting set of seven decision paths varied in both sequence and number of decision phases. An optimal matching procedure was used to compute similarity measures among the 40 paths, and cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling were used to generate an empirical taxonomy of decision paths. Results indicated that the nature of decision paths varied both across the three conditions and within conditions. The decision path types were also related to three outcome variables: consensus change, perceived decision quality, and decision scheme satisfaction. Results indicated that those decision paths that most resembled logical normative sequences had superior outcomes to those that did not.     

决策信心在信息化从众中的作用

研究采用JAS范式,通过操纵群体信息的性质（支持和反对）以及一致性程度,考察了决策信心在信息化从众过程中的作用。结果表明：（1）个体仅在接收到反对信息时会发生决策的偏转,表现出从众;（2）群体参照信息能够显著影响个体的信心：支持性的群体信息使个体的信心显著增高,而反对性的群体信息使信心显著降低,且表现出一种“负性偏向”（即个体对来自群体的负性信息更加敏感）;（3）在反对条件下,个体信心降低的程度能够很好地预测其决策偏转的概率,即信息化从众行为。这说明,决策信心可能在信息化从众中起着核心的中介作用——反对性的群体信息使得决策信心下降,而决策信心的下降导致了决策的偏转,从而表现出从众行为。     

“Either a medal or a corporal”: The effects of success and failure on the evaluation of decision making and decision makers

This paper is concerned with judgment by outcomes—justifying decisions and rewarding decision makers in case of success, and condemning both in case of failure. Officers in the Israel Defense Forces evaluated four versions of the same case of decision making in a military setting. In two versions the decision maker obeys his orders, in two he disobeys them to take a normatively appropriate action; one of each decision is successful, one of each fails. Though the cases are identical except for the above differences, successful decisions are considered more justified and to follow from superior decision making processes; decision making processes are perceived as more satisfactory when they lead to success, and successful decision makers are perceived more favorably than their unsuccessful counterparts. Role expectations regarding appropriate action influenced the justification of decisions and perceived favorability of decision makers and interacted with outcome valence in determining the allocation of reward and punishment and the evaluation of the decision making process. The paper discusses implications of the findings to Behavioral Decision Theory, Attribution Theory, and Organizational Learning.     

Justification and the Processing of Information

This study explores, within the context of escalating commitment, how ambiguous information affects decision making. By analyzing subjects' looking times and allocation decisions, we examined the process by which individuals abstract and use information to arrive at their decisions. We found that subjects spent more time processing ambiguous information than they did either purely optimistic or purely pessimistic information. This tendency to process ambiguous information longer increased when the decision maker was not exonerated from blame for the failure of an original decision; presented with ambiguous information, nonex-onerated subjects also made smaller allocations than did exonerated subjects. In this study, the predominant effect of felt responsibility on allocations was withdrawal rather than escalation. Our results suggest that the ambiguity of information about the future plays an important role in escalation and that the combination of responsibility and failure may affect allocations only when the prospective information is ambiguous.     

Outcome Knowledge,Regret, and Omission Bias

Subjects made or evaluated decisions in hypothetical scenarios. We manipulated knowledge about the outcome and act vs omission in four cases. In case 1 (production processes), acts (changing the process) were considered better than omissions when the decision maker did not know the outcome or knew that it was better than the status quo. Acts were considered worse than omissions once the decision maker learned that the foregone option would have led to an even better outcome. In case 2 (medical treatment), act vs omission again interacted with gain vs loss (relative to the status quo) unless the outcome of the foregone option was known, in which case act vs omission interacted with better vs worse (of the two options). In case 3 (fetal testing), subjects tolerated less risk of miscarriage when a potential for regret was present (because the test with the risk of miscarriage, although better, might miss disorders that another test would detect). This effect was greater for actions than omissions. In case 4 (vaccination), subjects showed less tolerance of vaccine risk when the decision maker would know about the outcome of vaccination or nonvaccination. Thus, the bias toward omission (not vaccinating) is greater when potential regret is present, and potential regret is greater when knowledge of outcomes is expected.     

Risk Taking in Decision Making for Others Versus the Self1

In two studies, we examined people's level of risk taking when making monetary decisions for other people rather than for themselves. Experiment 1 examined the role of regret in these situations; results show that regret concerns led to increased risk avoidance both when participants made decisions for other people as well as when making decisions for themselves. Experiment 2 tested whether skill tasks would lead to greater risk avoidance when the decision was for another person versus for oneself. This hypothesis was not supported, although men were more risk seeking than were women in both situations. Taken together, these studies suggest that many of the findings from risk research on individual decision making regarding financial situations generalize to decision making for others.     

情绪和任务框架对自我和预期他人决策时风险偏好的影响

两个实验考察了情绪和任务框架对自我和预期他人决策时风险偏好的影响。结果表明:(1)获益框架下,悲伤情绪比愉悦情绪诱发更强的风险偏好,自我决策比预期他人决策表现出更强的风险偏好;(2)损失框架下,愉悦情绪比悲伤情绪诱发更强的风险偏好,预期他人决策比自我决策表现出更强的风险偏好;(3)在自我决策时,愉悦情绪在损失框架下比在获益框架下诱发了更强的风险偏好,悲伤情绪在获益框架下比在损失框架下诱发了更强的风险偏好;在预期他人决策时,无论是愉悦情绪还是悲伤情绪,损失框架均比获益框架诱发了更强的风险偏好。     

The Impact of Depression on Self–Other Discrepancies in Decision Making

Although there is a small but growing body of literature on how people make risky decisions for others and predict others' decisions, results seem to be contradictory. The authors contribute to the understanding of these mixed results by investigating how depression affects self–other discrepancies in decision making and the psychological processes that underlie these discrepancies. In an experiment, depressed and nondepressed individuals read a series of scenarios involving decisions about health, money, and interpersonal relationships. They then indicated which of two options they would choose for themselves or for another person, or predicted which option this person would choose for himself or herself. Finally, participants reported benefits and drawbacks of the decisions (i.e., cognitions) and feelings about risk. Depressed individuals were less prone to bias when they predicted others' decisions than nondepressed individuals. Feelings about risk played a key role in determining the direction and the magnitude of this bias. In contrast, both depressed and nondepressed individuals showed bias when they made decisions for others. This bias affected their decisions in opposing ways and was determined by cognitions. This bias is consistent with literature showing that depression is associated with an increased sensitivity to social risks. The authors provide a theoretical explanation of self–other discrepancies in decision making in depressed and nondepressed individuals and conclude that the results support the assumption that depression is associated with psychological processes whose role is to increase sensitivity to social threats rather than with a more general negative bias in cognitive functioning. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making

We present three studies of interactive decision making, where decision makers interact with others before making a final decision alone. Because the theories of lay observers and social psychologists emphasize the role of information collection in interaction, we developed a series of tests of information collection. Two studies with sports collection show that interaction does not increase decision accuracy or meta-knowledge (calibration or resolution). The simplest test of information collection is responsiveness - that people should respond to information against their position by modifying their choices or at least lowering their confidence. Studies using traditional scenarios from the group polarization literature show little responsiveness, and even "deviants," who interact with others who unanimously disagree with their choice, frequently fail to respond to the information they collect. The most consistent finding is that interaction increases people′s confidence in their decisions in both sports predictions and risky shift dilemmas. For predictions, confidence increases are not justified by increased accuracy. These results question theories of interaction which assume that people collect information during interaction (e.g., Persuasive Arguments Theory). They also question the labeling of previous results as "shifts" or "polarization." We suggest that interaction is better understood as rationale construction than as information collection - interaction forces people to explain their choices to others, and a variety of previous research in social psychology has shown that explanation generation leads to increased confidence. In Study 3, we provide a preliminary test of rationale construction by showing that people increase in confidence when they construct a case for their position individually, without interaction.     

决策信心校准水平对元认知监控作用的影响

决策信心是个体对自身决策正确性的主观评价,是对决策过程的元认知体验。决策信心校准指决策信心水平与实际的决策正确率之间的匹配程度,其指标有信心水平和决策正确率的相关系数及Type II信号检测论中的ROC曲线下面积（Aroc）等。已有研究发现进行决策信心评估能够增强对当前或后续决策的元认知监控作用,但目前尚不清楚这种效应是否依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平。本研究通过设置知觉决策后是否进行决策信心评估（有信心评估与无信心评估）两种条件,考察个体决策信心的校准水平（Aroc）对元认知监控作用的影响。结果显示：1）与无信心评估条件相比,有信心评估的决策反应时显著增长,决策正确率显著提高（p<0.005）;2）Aroc与有、无信心评估条件下决策正确率的增加值显著正相关（r=0.25,p=0.034）,且高Aroc组的决策正确率增加值显著高于低Aroc组（p<0.05）。结果表明,在知觉决策过程中加入决策信心评估具有增强元认知监控作用的效应,体现为决策时间的增长和决策正确率的提高。并且,这种效应的大小依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平,校准水平越高元认知监控作用越好。     

Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams

Changes in the way organizations are structured and advances in communication technologies are two factors that have altered the conditions under which group decisions are made. Decisions are increasingly made by teams that have a hierarchical structure and whose members have different areas of expertise. In addition, many decisions are no longer made via strictly face-to-face interaction. The present study examines the effects of two modes of communication (face-to-face or computer-mediated) on the accuracy of teams' decisions. The teams are characterized by a hierarchical structure and their members differ in expertise consistent with the framework outlined in the Multilevel Theory of team decision making presented by Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major, and Phillips (1995). Sixty-four four-person teams worked for 3 h on a computer simulation interacting either face-to-face (FtF) or over a computer network. The communication mode had mixed effects on team processes in that members of FtF teams were better informed and made recommendations that were more predictive of the correct team decision, but leaders of CM teams were better able to differentiate staff members on the quality of their decisions. Controlling for the negative impact of FtF communication on staff member differentiation increased the beneficial effect of the FtF mode on overall decision making accuracy.     

先前情绪和过度自信对灾难事件后继风险决策的影响

研究考察了先前情绪和过度自信对灾难事件后继风险决策的影响。结果发现：(1)先前情绪的主效应显著, 积极情绪比消极情绪的个体在灾后风险决策时更加倾向于风险寻求;过度自信的主效应显著, 高过度自信比低过度自信个体在灾后风险决策时更加倾向于风险寻求。(2)先前情绪和过度自信水平交互影响灾难事件后继风险决策。高过度自信者在积极情绪状态下比在消极情绪状态下更倾向于风险寻求; 消极情绪状态下过度自信水平不同的个体之间没有显著差异。     

损益框架和损益概率对不同年级儿童风险决策的影响

摘 要 为探讨任务框架和自信水平对不同年级儿童风险决策的影响,采用3（年级：二/四/六年级）×2（任务框架：获益/损失）×2（自信水平：过度自信/自信不足）的组间实验设计,在情境性实验任务中探查177名儿童风险决策的发展特点。结果表明：（1）不同年级儿童在风险决策中表现出不同的发展特点,二年级儿童比六年级儿童更倾向于冒险,而四年级前后则是儿童风险决策发展的关键期、转折期;（2）儿童风险决策中存在框架效应,表现出偏好反转现象,与在获益情境下更偏好于保守决策相比,在损失情境下的儿童更偏好冒险决策;（3）自信水平并未对儿童的风险决策产生影响。     

Outcome effects: The impact of decision process and outcome controllability

An ‘outcome effect’ refers to the phenomenon whereby performance evaluations of decision makers are affected by the outcomes of those decisions. Although some consider such an effect to be a judgmental error, judgment by outcomes may not be dysfunctional when the evaluator does not know how the decision maker chose his or her action. In such situations, outcomes may provide some noisy information about decision quality. We test whether an outcome effect will still occur when the decision methodology and quality are more explicitly identified. Further, we test whether outcome controllability, a previously unexplored moderator variable, will have an impact on the outcome effect. Our first experiment, using undergraduates as subjects, shows that decision quality and controllability have an impact on performance evaluations but that the ubiquitous outcome effect still obtains. These results were replicated with experienced business people, except that controllability only affected their judgments in the case of negative outcomes. Implications of these results are discussed. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decision making and confidence given uncertain advice

We study human decision making in a simple forced-choice task that manipulates the frequency and accuracy of available information. Empirically, we find that people make decisions consistent with the advice provided, but that their subjective confidence in their decisions shows 2 interesting properties. First, people's confidence does not depend solely on the accuracy of the advice. Rather, confidence seems to be influenced by both the frequency and accuracy of the advice. Second, people are less confident in their guessed decisions when they have to make relatively more of them. Theoretically, we develop and evaluate a type of sequential sampling process model—known as a self-regulating accumulator—that accounts for both decision making and confidence. The model captures the regularities in people's behavior with interpretable parameter values, and we show its ability to fit the data is not due to excessive model complexity. Using the model, we draw conclusions about some properties of human reasoning under uncertainty.     

Self‐framing of risky choice

Previous research on framing effects has largely focused on how choice information framed by external sources influences the response of a decision maker. This research examined how decision makers framed choice options and how the hedonic tone of self‐framing influenced their risk preference. By using pie charts and a complementary sentence‐completion task in Experiment 1, participants were able to interpret and frame the expected choice outcomes themselves before making a choice between a sure option and a gamble in either a life–death or a monetary problem. Each of these self‐frames (phrases) was then rated by a group of independent judges in terms of its hedonic tone. The hedonic tone of self‐frames was mostly positive and was more positive in the life–death than the monetary context, suggesting a motivational function of self‐framing. However, positive outcomes were still more likely to be framed positively than negative outcomes. In Experiment 2, choice outcomes were depicted with a whole‐pie chart instead of a pie slice in order to emphasize positive and negative outcomes equally. The results showed that the hedonic tone of self‐framing was still largely positive and more positive in the life domain than the monetary domain. However, compared to Experiment 1, the risk preference in the life–death domain was reversed, showing an outcome salience effect: when the pie‐slice chart emphasized only survival outcomes, participants were more risk taking under positive hedonic frames whereas when the whole‐pie chart depicted both survival and mortality outcomes, they became risk averse under positive frames. In sum, self‐framing reflected a positive bias in encoding risk information and affected the risk preference of the decision maker. Like the tone of voice used in communication, the hedonic tone of self‐framing, either positive or negative, can affect risk perception of a choice problem. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.