风险决策过程验证：补偿/非补偿模型之争的新认识与新证据

风险决策是人类赖以生存和发展的重大决策。如何进行风险决策是人类不断认识和改造世界过程中遇到的未解之谜。主流风险理论认为, 风险决策是一个补偿性的、期望值最大化的过程; 而非主流的风险理论则认为, 风险决策是非补偿性的, 并不遵循期望法则所假设的加权求和等过程。这一谜团为何一直没有得以破解, 或许是因为我们未找到揭示其心理过程的令人信服的证据。近10年来, 我们针对风险决策过程, 借助行为实验、眼动记录法、事件相关电位、功能磁共振成像等技术, 系统探索风险决策的心理和神经机制, 为回答“风险决策是否遵循补偿性规则”这一问题提供了汇聚性证据。本文依据期望法则所假设的概率函数推导、加权过程、加权求和过程、总分最大化等步骤, 对这些研究进行梳理与回顾, 以期加深人们对风险决策机制的理解, 并为建立、健全与风险决策相关的政策、法律法规提供理论依据。     

基于三参照点理论的薪酬差距与离职决策的分析

离职是组织管理研究中一个重要的课题, 但鲜有研究将其纳入风险决策的框架中。本文运用行为决策的研究方法, 将离职作为一种风险选择, 运用三参照点理论探讨个体薪酬差距与离职决策之间的关系。我们的理论分析和初步的预研究发现：(1)个体薪酬现状与底线的差距负向预测离职决策, 薪酬目标与现状的差距正向预测离职决策; (2)进一步推导出薪酬差距与离职决策间存在双拐点的非线性函数关系; (3)同行现状收入作为横向参照系, 在薪酬差距与离职决策两者之间起锚定作用; (4)组织中薪酬分布的差距大小作为纵向参照系, 在薪酬差距与离职决策两者之间起调节作用。本研究将离职作为一种风险决策进行研究, 不仅对于离职理论与决策理论的发展有一定意义, 而且为人力资源管理实践提供了指导与启示。     

社会排斥影响跨期决策的心理机制探讨

社会排斥广泛存在于社会生活中, 并对人们的认知、情感、行为等诸多方面产生严重的消极影响。它会损害个体的认知功能, 导致个体不能进行理性的判断和决策。研究发现被排斥的个体在风险决策时倾向于风险寻求。跨期决策和风险决策都与人类的生存和发展息息相关, 但目前并不清楚社会排斥是否以及如何影响跨期决策。因此, 本研究拟从跨期决策的评估和选择两个阶段展开研究, 揭示社会排斥对其的作用机制。并在此基础上, 运用tDCS技术激活社会排斥的调节脑区, 以改善被排斥个体的跨期决策能力。研究结果将揭示人际情境因素与决策者个人因素对跨期决策的联合作用机制, 帮助被排斥者提高跨期决策能力, 提高被排斥者的个人成就和生活质量。     

风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较：以确定效应和即刻效应为例

风险决策和跨期决策与人类生存发展密切相关, 且两类决策在理论发展、行为效应及神经基础等方面具有相似性。为检验二者是否具有共同过程机制, 本研究以风险决策中的确定效应和跨期决策中的即刻效应为例, 采用眼动追踪技术比较了它们的局部、整体过程及模型拟合。辅以贝叶斯因子分析实验数据表明：二者的主要过程特征均相似, 且更符合非折扣模型假设; 二者在加工复杂程度等少数特征上有所不同; 确定和即刻信息在加工方向等特征上存在特异性。这表明二者可能具有共同的核心决策规则：两类决策更可能遵循非折扣模型预期的简捷、启发式规则, 而不是折扣模型所假设的补偿性、基于选项规则。本研究为建立两类决策的共同解释框架做出了有益尝试, 并为决策比较研究方法提供新的方向。     

心理距离与决策者角色对风险决策的影响

采用改编的I0S量表测量自我与他人的心理距离,在收益和损失情境下,综合探讨了为他人和预测他人决策时心理距离对个体风险偏好的影响.结果发现:(1)与他人心理距离越远,个体决策时越偏好风险,且反应时越短;(2)个体预测他人决策时比为他人决策时更偏好风险,但两者反应时没有显著差异;(3)心理距离与决策者角色存在交互作用,即预测时个体认为远心理距离他人比近心理距离他人更冒险,而为他人决策时两者差异消失;(4)决策角色与决策框架、心理距离与决策框架存在交互作用:在收益框架下,自我他人心理距离较远时个体更偏好风险,且个体预测比为他人决策时更冒险,损失条件下无差异.依据相关理论对这些结果进行了分析讨论.     

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。     

决策风格的理论发展及建构：基于信息加工视角

决策风格是人们在决策中表现出来的习惯性或独特的行为模式, 对决策、管理等领域均有重要影响。近年兴起的决策风格理论主要基于个体信息加工策略, 如基于双加工理论和基于后悔情绪的决策风格模型等。决策风格对个体决策的影响表现在决策策略与偏差、情绪和无意识加工等方面。该领域在诸如决策风格的主要理论、测量工具和理论检验等方面亦取得积极进展, 未来研究方向应注意基于双加工理论和进化心理学建构决策风格理论。     

“金钱-环境”复合收益的风险决策:价值取向的影响

现实中的环境决策,往往要在多个由"金钱-环境"复合而成的结果间做选择。人们如何对异质复合结果进行评估与选择,是决策研究面临的新课题。本研究着重考察个体金钱取向和环境取向的相对强度对复合收益风险决策的影响。结果表明,无论是采用自陈量表(实验1)或内隐联想测验(实验2)来测量价值取向,还是采用混词造句任务(实验3)来启动价值取向,均发现价值取向相对强度对复合风险决策有显著影响。(1)相比于金钱取向占优的个体,环境取向占优的个体在进行复合风险决策时更偏好环境风险较小的复合选项;(2)在复合选项等价匹配任务中,环境取向占优的个体会赋予复合选项中的环境收益以更高权重,倾向于用更多的金钱收益来弥补环境收益的风险折扣;(3)在复合收益风险概率匹配任务中,环境取向占优的个体更倾向于为获取倍增的环境收益而承担更大的复合收益风险。作为对复合结果风险决策的首次探索,本研究初步回答了不同价值取向的个体在金钱-环境复合风险决策中更倾向于规避什么风险、拿什么冒险以及为什么冒险等问题,为今后进一步开展复合决策研究打下了理论和方法基础。     

社会压力与决策角色对不同人际敏感性个体助人决策的影响

本研究基于人格的交互作用理论,通过时间与金钱两种助人决策情景,设计两个实验考察了人际敏感性特质对个体助人决策的影响,以及决策角色与社会压力两种情境因素在其中的作用。结果发现：(1)相比低人际敏感性,高人际敏感性个体更容易做出助人决策;(2)相比低社会压力,高社会压力下,高人际敏感性比低人际敏感性个体捐助的金钱更多; (3)高社会压力下,相比低人际敏感性个体,高人际敏感性个体为朋友与陌生人决策时会捐助更多的金钱。研究表明：人际敏感性影响个体的助人决策,决策角色与社会压力会对不同人际敏感性个体的助人决策有不同程度的影响。     

社会压力与决策角色对不同人际敏感性个体助人决策的影响

本研究基于人格的交互作用理论,通过时间与金钱两种助人决策情景,设计两个实验考察了人际敏感性特质对个体助人决策的影响,以及决策角色与社会压力两种情境因素在其中的作用。结果发现：(1)相比低人际敏感性,高人际敏感性个体更容易做出助人决策;(2)相比低社会压力,高社会压力下,高人际敏感性比低人际敏感性个体捐助的金钱更多; (3)高社会压力下,相比低人际敏感性个体,高人际敏感性个体为朋友与陌生人决策时会捐助更多的金钱。研究表明：人际敏感性影响个体的助人决策,决策角色与社会压力会对不同人际敏感性个体的助人决策有不同程度的影响。     

迫选规则体验法: 检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的新尝试

为寻求检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的通用标准, 本研究以期望价值理论和齐当别抉择模型为例, 探讨了“迫选规则体验法”的适用性。被试为120名大学生, 实验任务为要求被试分别完成自主决策(采用未知规则: 真规则)和规则迫选决策(遵循给定规则: 假规则)任务, 并对决策后的情感和认可程度进行评定。研究发现: (1) 被试在自主决策条件下比在规则迫选条件下体验到的正性情感程度更强, 负性情感的程度更弱; (2) 被试在自主决策与规则迫选决策两种条件下做出的相同决策越多, 该被试对迫选规则更加认可并体验到的正性情感程度越强, 负性情感的程度越弱; (3) 与期望价值理论相比, 齐当别抉择模型可能符合更多决策者的实际决策规则。这些结果表明, 作为检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的新尝试, 迫选规则体验法可能更有助于回答“决策者实际采用的决策规则是什么”的问题。     

Family conflict shapes how adolescents take risks when their family is affected

Numerous studies have established that the social context greatly affects adolescent risk taking. However, it remains unexplored whether adolescents' decision‐making behaviors change when they take risks that affect other individuals such as a parent. In the current study, we sought to investigate how the social context influences risky decisions when adolescents' behavior affects their family using a formalized risk‐taking model. Sixty‐three early adolescents (M_age = 13.3 years; 51% female) played a risk‐taking task twice, once during which they could make risky choices that only affected themselves and another during which their risky choices only affected their parent. Results showed that adolescents reporting high family conflict made more risky decisions when taking risks for their parent compared to themselves, whereas adolescents reporting low family conflict made fewer risky decisions when taking risks for their parent compared to themselves. These findings are the first to show that adolescents change their decision‐making behaviors when their risks affect their family and have important implications for current theories of adolescent risk taking.     

Do we make decisions for other people based on our predictions of their preferences? evidence from financial and medical scenarios involving risk

Abstract

The ways in which the decisions we make for others differ from the ones we make for ourselves has received much attention in the literature, although less is known about their relationship to our predictions of the recipient’s preferences. The latter question is of particular importance given real-world occurrences of surrogate decision-making which require surrogates to consider the recipient’s preferences. We conducted three experiments which explore this relationship in the medical and financial domains. Although there were mean discrepancies between surrogate predictions and choices, we identified a predictive relationship between the two. Moreover, when participants took high risks for themselves, it seems that they were not willing to do so for others, even when they believed that the recipient’s preferences were similar to their own. We discuss these findings relative to current theories and real-world instances of surrogate decision-making.     

Obstetric Autonomy and Informed Consent

I argue that public officials and health workers ought to respect and protect women’s rights to make risky choices during childbirth. Women’s rights to make treatment decisions ought to be respected even if their decisions expose their unborn children to unnecessary risks, and even if it is wrong to put unborn children at risk. I first defend a presumption of medical autonomy in the context of childbirth. I then draw on women’s birth stories to show that women’s medical autonomy is often ignored during labor. Medical interventions are performed during childbirth without women’s consent. Childbirth is risky and some coercive medical interventions may be understood as attempts to protect children and to prevent mothers from acting impermissibly. However, even if it is wrong to make risky choices during childbirth, women have rights to do wrong in these cases. Therefore, coercive medical interventions are impermissible during childbirth and institutions should adopt specific protections for obstetric autonomy.     

睡眠剥夺对风险决策的影响机制探讨

许多行业的决策者必须在睡眠不足的状态下做出选择与判断。睡眠剥夺是睡眠不足的实验室模型, 被证明能显著影响风险决策, 但内在机制不明。基于前人研究基础提出假设模型, 即睡眠剥夺通过影响个体的反馈加工、风险感知、抑制控制、决策理性, 进而影响风险决策。拟通过实验室研究与现场研究, 采用简单赌博任务、概率折扣任务、双选择Oddball任务等研究范式, 对比睡眠剥夺前后被试在执行上述实验任务时的行为差异, 同时比较执行控制网络、奖赏网络等脑功能网络连接强度, 以及任务诱发的FRN等脑电成分在睡眠剥夺前后的变化, 进而论证上述反应被试反馈加工等心理过程的行为-脑电-脑成像指标的变化与睡眠剥夺后被试风险决策变化的关系。研究结果将科学地解释睡眠剥夺影响风险决策的内在机制, 为进一步探讨如何规避睡眠不足导致的决策失误提供理论与实证依据。     

The effects of discussion on group and individual choices among bets

The effects of discussion on subsequent group and individual choices are studied in a situation where subjects choose between a sure gain of varying amount and five probability levels associated with larger gains of expected value equal to that of the sure gain. At the end of the experiment, a single bet, chosen at random, is played for money. Before discussion, subjects have to guess the percentage of similar, more risky and more cautious choices made by their peers for each of the six bets. As predicted by a majority-rule decision-making model significant risky shifts were observed for relatively low values of sure gain. For higher values, however, groups tended to be more cautious than individuals. The final private choices of individuals were significantly more risky than their initial decisions. Most individuals apparently thought they were at least as risky as most others. This finding was due, however, primarily to the responses of subjects who chose the highest risk-level (the ceiling effect) and, secondly, to the consistent tendency of most individuals to guess that others make the same choices as they themselves. It is concluded that majority influence seems a satisfactory explanation of group risky shifts observed in the present study, but it cannot account for modifications of group and individual choices in all risk-taking situations.     

Risk preference and choice stochasticity during decisions for other people

In several contexts, such as finance and politics, people make choices that are relevant for others but irrelevant for oneself. Focusing on decision-making under risk, we compared monetary choices made for one’s own interest with choices made on behalf of an anonymous individual. Consistent with the previous literature, other-interest choices were characterized by an increased gambling propensity. We also investigated choice stochasticity, which captures how much decisions vary in similar conditions. An aspect related to choice stochasticity is how much decisions are tuned to the option values, and we found that this was higher during self-interest than during other-interest choices. This effect was observed only in individuals who reported a motivation to distribute rewards unequally, suggesting that it may (at least partially) depend on a motivation to make accurate decisions for others. Our results indicate that, during decision-making under risk, choices for other people are characterized by a decreased tuning to the values of the options, in addition to enhanced risk seeking.