不确定性容忍度、损益概率及延迟风险对延迟选择的影响

研究通过两个实验考查了不确定性容忍度及相关变量对延迟选择的影响,其中实验1采用2（不确定性容忍度：高/低）×2（概率水平：高/中）被试间实验设计;研究2将实验任务设定在有延迟风险情景下中等概率水平,采用单因素（不确定性容忍度：高/低）被试间实验设计.实验1结果表明：不确定性容忍度与概率水平存在交互作用：中等概率时,低容忍度个体比高容忍度个体更偏好延迟选择,高概率时,两者的延迟选择无显著差异,都偏好于选择决策.实验2结果表明：在有延迟风险中等概率时,高、低容忍度个体的决策偏好无显著差异,都偏好选择决策.结论：不确定性容忍度对延迟选择存在影响且受概率水平和延迟风险的调节.     

不确定性容忍度对风险偏好的影响及其情景依赖性

研究以经营店面为背景设计决策材料,采用2(不确定性容忍度:高/低)×2(损益背景:损失/获益)×2(选项描述框架:积极/消极)×3(损益概率:高/中/低)混合实验设计,探讨不同任务情景下个体不确定性容忍度对风险偏好的影响。结果发现,不确定性容忍度主效应显著,高容忍度者比低容忍度者更冒险。不确定性容忍度与损益背景交互作用显著：在损失背景下,高容忍度者比低容忍度者更冒险,在获益背景下无此效应。不确定性容忍度与选项描述框架交互作用显著：在积极框架下,高容忍度者比低容忍度者更冒险,在消极框架下无此效应。这表明,不确定性容忍度对风险偏好产生影响,但这种影响会受到损益背景和选项描述框架的调节,具有情景依赖性。     

概率大小、损益结果和认知闭合需要对模糊规避的影响

模糊规避是指在相同奖赏的情况下,决策者会力图规避从主观上判断具有模糊概率的事件而偏好具有相同精确概率的事件。本研究探讨了概率大小、损益结果和认知闭合需要对模糊规避的影响。研究发现,在小概率受益的情况下,个体倾向于模糊寻求;在中概率受益的情况下,个体倾向于模糊规避;在高概率受益的情况下,个体倾向于模糊规避;在小概率损失的情况下,个体倾向于模糊规避;在中概率损失的情况下,个体倾向于模糊规避;在高概率损失的情况下,个体倾向于模糊寻求。但是,研究并未发现认知闭合需要对模糊规避有预测作用。     

模糊决策的情境依赖性

实验1采用艾尔斯伯格悖论的研究范式,探究被试对模糊的厌恶倾向以及在决策过程中所采用的决策策略。结果发现：被试对确定选项和模糊选项的选择存在差异;在肯定形式下倾向于确定选项,而在否定形式下则倾向于模糊选项,采用了利益最大化策略。实验2采用艾尔斯伯格悖论的变式,通过操纵概率和任务类型,发现：模糊决策具有情境依赖性,并非任何情况下个体都厌恶模糊。当风险选项不能满足自己的需要,即获胜机率比较小时,人们会偏向模糊选项。     

自尊与模糊决策中的决策偏好

从自尊的角度出发,与是否需要承担决策结果的责任相结合,探讨了低自尊、中等自尊和高自尊水平下的被试在模糊决策中的决策偏好。结果发现：角色差异对决策偏好没有影响;自尊水平的高低对决策偏好有影响,高自尊被试与中等、低自尊被试相比,更容易模糊规避。支持了高自尊个体比低自尊个体更具有防御反应的理论。     

青少年决策中的风险选择框架效应

以181名青少年(初二、高二、大二)为被试,探究其在不同决策领域(生命、娱乐、学业)的风险选择框架效应及其在年级、风险偏好水平上的特点.结果表明:(1)框架效应程度与决策领域有关,被试在生命和娱乐领域的决策问题上倾向于风险寻求.(2)不同年级被试的决策结果受问题框架的影响,大学生在生命问题上倾向于风险寻求,初中生在娱乐问题上倾向于风险寻求,高中生在学业领域上倾向于风险规避.(3)不同风险偏好水平被试的决策结果受问题框架的影响,风险偏好水平高的被试在生命、娱乐问题上倾向于风险寻求,风险偏好水平低的被试在学业问题上倾向于风险规避.     

不同模糊程度下模糊决策的决策偏好

该研究采用艾尔斯伯格悖论的变式,选取二择一的迫选任务,旨在探讨不同球数和不同模糊程度下模糊决策的决策偏好。结果发现,球数的不同对决策的偏好基本上没有影响;而模糊程度的不同,对决策的偏好有影响。具体表现为：模糊程度较高时,被试倾向于模糊厌恶,模糊程度较低时倾向于模糊寻求。     

创业风险决策框架效应特征研究

以创业风险决策为背景,以从事管理类工作的白领员工为被试,探讨了框架效应的表现特征。结果表明随着损益值的增加人们倾向保守,而随着概率水平的增加而偏好冒险,创业倾向高的个体更倾向冒险。框架效应并不出现在所有输赢描述决策情境中,它只出现在缺乏主导社会线索的模糊情况下。     

“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。     

不同风险态度大学生职业决策的线索偏好及信息搜索特点

探讨不同风险态度的大学生在职业决策中的线索偏好及信息搜索特点。以大学生为被试,以Weber的风险态度问卷为工具,筛选出风险寻求大学生26名,风险规避大学生23名,采用信息板技术进行模拟职业决策研究。结果发现：（1）风险寻求和风险规避大学生在职业决策中点击次数最多的职业属性均依次是工资、发展空间和兴趣;（2）在信息板的点击次数上,风险寻求被试比风险规避被试更多;在搜索模式上,风险寻求组被试和风险规避组的得分均为正值,但风险寻求组被试的得分显著高于风险规避组。因此,大学生职业决策中偏好的线索主要是工资、发展空间和兴趣;风险寻求者的信息搜索模式与风险规避者不同,风险寻求者更倾向于以选项为基础的搜索模式。     

Ambiguity attitudes in qualitative contexts: The role of prior beliefs

Most studies of ambiguity aversion rely on experimental paradigms involving monetary bets. Thus, the extent to which ambiguity aversion occurs outside of such contexts is much less understood, particularly when the situation cannot easily be reduced to numerical terms. The present work seeks to understand whether people prefer to avoid ambiguous decisions in a variety of different qualitative domains (e.g., work, family, love, friendship, exercise, study, and health), and, if so, to determine the role played by prior beliefs in those domains. Across three studies, we presented participants with 24 vignettes and measured the degree to which they preferred risk to ambiguity in each. We also asked them for their prior probability estimates about the likely outcomes in the ambiguous events. Ambiguity aversion was observed in the vast majority of vignettes, but at different magnitudes. It was predicted by whether the vignette involved gain or loss as well as by people's prior beliefs; however, the heterogeneity between people meant that the role of prior beliefs was only evident in an individual-level analysis (i.e., not at the group level). Our results suggest that the desire to avoid ambiguity occurs in a wide variety of qualitative contexts but to different degrees for different people and may be partially driven by unfavorable prior estimates of the likely outcomes of the ambiguous events.     

概率水平与模糊性对短视损失规避的影响

短视损失规避是指如果投资者频繁地评估其投资回报,那么他就会经常改变其投资决策,进而减少对风险资产的投入。本文采用实验法探讨了任务概率水平以及模糊性对短视损失规避的影响。结果发现短视损失规避只存在于中等损失概率任务中,说明该现象并非普遍存在;当概率模糊时,高损失概率任务中出现短视损失规避,而低损失概率任务中则出现反向的短视损失规避,说明模糊性能扩展“短视”起作用的概率范围。     

成就动机和性别对风险倾向的预测作用

研究通过对等同绝对值(CE)的比较将冒险倾向转换为可以量化比较的变量,旨在探讨成就动机和性别在经济获益和损失的各种概率情景下对冒险倾向的预测作用。结果发现,高低成就动机组并没有表现出冒险倾向的显著差异。进一步的相关分析发现,成就动机中的回避失败维度与获益情景下的冒险倾向相关显著,而追求成功维度与各个情景下的相关都不显著。以回避失败维度聚类得到的高低回避失败组,体现出来的冒险倾向趋势显示高回避失败组的被试在获益低概率、获益中等概率、获益高概率、损失低概率、损失中等概率和损失高概率6种情景下都更加回避冒险,而且两组等同绝对值中位数的差异在获益中等概率和获益高概率两种情况下达到显著。另外,冒险倾向的性别差异只在损失中等概率和损失高概率两种情景中达到显著,这两种情况下都是女性更冒险,这与传统的女性更保守的刻板印象不同。     

Delay discounting of monetary gains and losses in adolescents with ADHD: Contribution of delay aversion to choice

Adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are known to have stronger preferences for smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards in delay discounting tasks than their peers, which has been argued to reflect delay aversion. Here, participants performed a delay discounting task with gains and losses. In this latter condition, participants were asked whether they were willing to wait in order to lose less money. Following the core assumption of the delay aversion model that individuals with ADHD have a general aversion to delay, one would predict adolescents with ADHD to avoid waiting in both conditions. Adolescents (12–17 years) with ADHD (n = 29) and controls (n = 28) made choices between smaller immediate and larger delayed gains, and between larger immediate and smaller delayed losses. All delays (5–25 s) and gains/losses (2–10 cents) were experienced. In addition to an area under the curve approach, a mixed-model analysis was conducted to disentangle the contributions of delay duration and immediate gain/delayed loss amount to choice. The ADHD group chose the immediate option more often than controls in the gain condition, but not in the loss condition. The contribution of delay duration to immediate choices was stronger for the ADHD group than the control group in the gain condition only. In addition, the ADHD group scored higher on self-reported delay aversion, and delay aversion was associated with delay sensitivity in the gain condition, but not in the loss condition. In sum, we found no clear evidence for a general aversion to delay in adolescents with ADHD.     

个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响

摘 要 以中国大学生为被试,采用问卷的方式,探讨权力对损失规避倾向的影响。实验一发现,与低权力被试相比,高权力被试具有较少的损失规避。实验二进一步考察权力影响损失规避的原因机制,结果发现,权力对收益的价值估计没有影响,但降低了个体对损失的价值估计,从而导致损失规避的减少。结果表明,权力除了激活个体对收益的趋近,还可能抑制个体对损失的感知,权力也是影响决策的因素之一。 关键词 权力 损失规避 估计价值     

Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion

Although prior research has shown that some people prefer a risky to an ambiguous option, this study further proposes that people's regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) might influence their ambiguity aversion. Three experiments have tested whether people with promotion focus showed less ambiguity aversion than those with prevention focus: The first experiment revealed that, compared with chronically promotion‐focused individuals, prevention‐focused subjects preferred a risky to an ambiguous option. In the second experiment, priming of the subjects' goal orientations led to similar results. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants showed less ambiguity aversion for the expected performance of an investment product representative of promotion (e.g., a stock fund) rather than one representative of prevention (e.g., a bond fund). In other words, people showed less preference for a bond fund when the probability distribution of its expected performance was unknown than when it was known, whereas they showed less preference difference between known and unknown probability distributions for the expected performance of a stock fund. This study has integrated research pertaining to regulatory focus and ambiguity aversion, and the results have confirmed that the impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion is robust across different methods and decision tasks. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.