风险决策心理因素的理论综述

风险决策理论对于人们是否作出冒险行为的选择提出了两种比较典型的解释:一种解释把风险决策归因于人们共有的基本过程,即“较冷”的心理和认知过程。这些理论认为风险选择是由人类基本的心理和感觉机制引起的。而另一种解释则把风险决策归因于“较热”的情感和动机过程。这些理论认为,情境和人格因素会增强风险决策的动机并导致风险决策个体差异的存在。本文对这两种解释的不同理论作了较为系统的论述。     

当局者迷,旁观者清?自我-他人决策的理性差异及其机制

生活充满抉择,由于知识经验的局限,人们常需寻求他人建议,抑或直接请他人代己决策.诸多研究探讨了自我决策、向他人建议,以及代他人决策之间的差异.探究这种差异的动因之一在于考察何种条件下的决策更优或更“理性”.以往研究表明,自我决策或他人决策(向他人建议或代他人决策)均有可能更易违背理性决策原则,隐含着他人决策优于自我决策的“当局者迷,旁观者清”这一传统智慧有一定的边界条件.研究者一般从认知(建构水平理论)、情绪(类型和卷入度),以及动机(调节聚焦理论)三种视角对自我-他人决策差异进行解释.本文作者提出基于理由的决策(reason-based account)假设来解释自我-他人决策在理性程度上的差异.未来研究可从决策过程及脑机制上深入考察自我-他人决策差异及其机制.     

睾酮对价值加工的影响——基于“累积前景”理论框架的决策行为研究

较多研究支持睾酮和决策中的风险寻求行为呈正相关,但是也有其他的研究未能发现这种关系。基于决策的累计前景理论,本研究使用动态估计参数估计任务(DEEP),结合计算模型的方法,对120名双盲给药、有安慰剂对照的被试进行睾酮对价值加工过程作用的探究。结果显示,睾酮减少了个体的概率扭曲以及增加了损失规避,但是没有引发明显的风险寻求行为,研究结果表明睾酮对个体的价值加工过程产生了影响,使个体对概率的感知更接近于客观值并且增加了对损失的敏感性。     

Original and cumulative prospect theory: a discussion of empirical differences

This paper discusses differences between prospect theory and cumulative prospect theory. It shows that cumulative prospect theory is not merely a formal correction of some theoretical problems in prospect theory, but it also gives different predictions. Some experiments by Lola Lopes are re-analyzed, and are demonstrated to favor cumulative prospect theory over prospect theory. It turns out that the mathematical form of cumulative prospect theory is well suited for modeling the psychological phenomenon of diminishing sensitivity. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

风险决策中的双参照点效应

以预期理论为代表的决策理论认为, 决策者自身的损益状态对风险决策有重要作用, 因此, 将决策者的现状定义为个人参照点。它决定了决策情境是个人获益还是个人损失。个人参照点直接关乎决策者实际的得失, 具有直接性、真实性和绝对性的特征。然而, 社会比较理论认为, 与他人的比较结果同样对风险决策具有不可忽视的意义。因此, 将他人的状态定义为社会参照点。自身的现状与他人状态相比较的结果决定了决策情境是社会获益还是社会损失。社会参照点无关决策者的实际得失, 具有间接性、假设性和相对性的特征。社会参照点通过自我概念、情绪、认知等路径作用于风险决策。更为重要的是, 社会参照点和个人参照点同时存在于风险决策过程中, 决策者对两者的心理感受和行为倾向具有相似性, 因此两者将共同影响决策者的风险选择。基于此, 本文提出风险决策中的双参照点效应。有关双参照点对风险决策过程的影响机制还需进一步的探讨。     

Do Politicians Take Risks Like the Rest of Us? An Experimental Test of Prospect Theory Under MPs

Political psychologists have been quick to use prospect theory in their work, realizing its potential for explaining decisions under risk. Applying prospect theory to political decision‐making is not without problems, though, and here we address two of these: (1) Does prospect theory actually apply to political decision‐makers, or are politicians unlike the rest of us? (2) Which dimension do politicians use as their reference point when there are multiple dimensions (e.g., votes and policy)? We address both problems in an experiment with a unique sample of Dutch members of parliament as participants. We use well‐known (incentivized) decision situations and newly developed hypothetical political decision‐making scenarios. Our results indicate that politicians’ deviate from expected utility theory in the direction predicted by prospect theory but that these deviations are somewhat smaller than those of other people. Votes appear to be a more important determinant of politicians’ reference point than is policy.     

决策的三参照点理论:从原理到应用

三参照点理论(Tri-Reference Point Theory,Wang,2008a; Wang& Johnson,2012)以底线、现状和目标为参照点,将决策结果空间划分为失败、损失、获益和成功4个功能区域.根据3个参照点的心理权重的排序:底线＞目标＞现状,该模型继而推导出跨越不同区域的以现状为分界的双S-型的价值函数,以及据此产生的对于跨越不同参照点的预期结果的偏好转换、和损失-获益及失败-成功的两种不对称性.总之,风险决策的基本任务在于,在使得达到目标的可能性最大化的同时使底线不保的可能性最小化.三参照点理论将统计学和金融学中的均值与方差(均差)分析与行为决策研究中的参照点效应有机地结合在一起;在面对不同的风险选项时,通过分析各个预期结果的均差分布与3个参照点之间的关系作出适应性的决策.本文介绍了三参照点理论的基本推论、运行原则、实证检验、以及它与期望效用理论和前景理论相比较的异同之处.同时我们也探讨了三参照点理论对实践中管理决策的指导意义和多重启示.     

判断与决策研究纵观:基于模糊痕迹理论的视角(英文)

模糊痕迹理论是用于解释记忆、判断与决策的综合性理论,该理论的提出和发展主要基于对信息存储、表征、提取和加工过程的研究。本文首先介绍了模糊痕迹理论的基本原则,在此基础上重点讨论了其要义(gist)如何发挥核心作用,使得模糊痕迹理论有别于其他传统的决策模型。该理论将高级直觉与原始冲动性进行了区分,并且预测决策误差来源于判断与决策的各种不同成分,如背景知识、信息表征、提取和加工过程等。模糊痕迹理论不仅可以解释诸如框架效应、合取谬误等传统决策与判断文献中常讨论的误差现象,同时基于该理论的研究还得到了一些与传统决策理论相悖的新发现。此外,对脑与行为如何发育性变化的研究为我们了解成人的认知过程提供了至关重要的新视角,这些对脑与行为的发育性研究和对特殊人群的研究结果也都支持了模糊痕迹理论对要义加工依赖的预测。     

医疗风险决策的自我他人差异及其影响因素

从心理学的层面梳理医疗风险决策自我他人差异的表现及影响因素,狭义的医疗风险是患者在医疗服务的过程中因为医疗过失导致的损害等不安全事件,而广义的医疗风险包含了患者受到的伤害和整个医疗卫生体系受到的损失。在实际的医疗决策中,医生、家属和患者三方通常会做出不同的决策并且伴随着其立场的合理性,决策时也会受到决策框架和医疗决策模式等多方面的影响,可以采用解释水平理论、社会价值理论和双系统理论对不同决策主体之间的决策差异进行解释。未来可以从真实的医疗情境、个人特质、文化差异等方面进行深入研究。     

Post-decision consolidation over time as a function of gain or loss of an alternative

Post-decision consolidation processes were studied in a two-stage lottery design. School children (1) rated the attractiveness of audiotape head sets, (2) decided for which of two head sets they would like to get a lottery ticket, (3) threw a dice to determine if they got a lottery ticket in the preferred lottery or not, and (4)drew a ticket in the final lottery. Before and after each of these stages ratings were obtained of the attractiveness of the alternatives on four attributes. The results were interpreted in terms of Differentiation and Consolidation Theory. Post-decision consolidation appeared immediately after the outcome of the dice throw. Subjects who won a lottery ticket consolidated their prior decision to a greater degree than those who lost. The effect was so strong for the former group that a pre-decision attractiveness disadvantage was restructured to a post-decision advantage. Folowing the decision, consolidation remained at approximately the level reached immediately after the dice throw for losers and winners, respectively, but with an increasing trend over time for winners. Even following a final loss of an audiotape headset the level of consolidation was maintained.     

Regret in Decision Making

Decision research has only recently started to take seriously the role of emotions in choices and decisions. Regret is the emotion that has received the most attention. In this article, we sample a number of the initial regret studies from psychology and economics, and trace some of the complexities and contradictions to which they led. We then sketch a new theory, decision justification theory (DJT), which synthesizes several apparently conflicting findings. DJT postulates two core components of decision–related regret, one associated with the (comparative) evaluation of the outcome, the other with the feeling of self–blame for having made a poor choice. We reinterpret several existing studies in DJT terms. We then report some new studies that directly tested (and support) DJT, and propose a number of research issues that follow from this new approach to regret.     

Effectiveness of the GOFER course in decision making for high school students

The paper describes and evaluates the GOFER course in decision making for high school students (Mann, Harmoni and Power, 1988). The course was based on principles from the conflict theory of decision making (Janis and Mann, 1977) and was designed to provide adolescents with an understanding of factors that produce good and poor decision making as well as knowledge and practice of sound decision skills. Two evaluation studies were conducted to examine effectiveness of the course. Study 1 was conducted with young adolescents (12 year olds). It found a significant difference between students trained in the course and a control group on measures of self-esteem as a decision maker, self reported decision habits and knowledge of decision strategy. Study 2 was conducted with mid-adolescents (15 year olds). It, too, found a significant difference between students who took the course and a control group on measures of self esteem as a decision maker and self-reported decision habits. It is concluded that while the evaluation study fell short of an ideal test, the GOFER course met the criteria of improving student knowledge, raising confidence in decision making and changing self reported decision habits.     

Predicting Affective Responses to Unexpected Outcomes

In decisions under uncertainty, decision makers confront two uncertainties: the uncertain linkage between actions and outcomes and the uncertain linkage between these outcomes and his or her affective responses to them. The two studies reported here examine affective responses to expected and unexpected outcomes in various settings. In Study 1, a scenario-based laboratory experiment (N = 149), we examined subjects' predicted responses to a range of outcomes, as a function of how surprising the outcome was. Study 2, a field study (N = 127), involved the expectations of bowlers about their scores in an upcoming game and about their responses to various outcomes at, above, and below expectations. We also measured actual affective reactions after the bowlers had completed their games. Findings suggest that subjects both expect and experience a loss-averse, expectation-based value function broadly of the Prospect Theory type. They also anticipate, and experience, an amplifying effect of outcome surprise, though they underestimate its size. We argue that such underestimation, together with overtight prediction ranges, may expose subjects to much larger affective variation with outcome variability than they anticipate.