共查询到14条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
通过直接测量近期和远期选择中备选项激活的情绪、间隔的时间知觉及对备选项金额差异和时间间隔的重视程度,以探究跨期选择中偏好反转产生的心理机制。结果表明：（1）近期选择中,备选项激活的情绪强度差异显著,而远期选择中两者的差异不显著;（2）近期和远期选择中,情绪强度差异和时间知觉差异能够预测偏好反转的发生。研究结果支持了偏好反转的情绪激活差异假说和时间知觉差异假说。 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
识解水平对跨期选择和风险选择的影响 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：2
通过考察识解水平启动对跨期选择和风险选择的影响, 探究两类选择对时间或风险心理加工的相似性。结果发现, 无论以思维诱导为识解水平的启动条件(实验1), 还是以视觉加工为识解水平的启动条件(实验2), 受高识解水平启动的被试对延迟选项和风险选项的主观值判断都要大于受低识解水平启动的被试, 说明跨期选择中的延迟时间和风险选择中的概率具有相似的表征, 而识解水平思维定势是通过影响金额和时间(或概率)的相对权重起作用。即由于高识解水平下的金额权重高于低识解水平, 时间(或概率)权重低于低识解水平, 从而使被试在高识解水平下更愿意等待或冒险。 相似文献
5.
6.
健康领域的跨期决策关系着个体和国民的健康和福祉。目前学界对该领域的研究主要停留在参考传统金钱领域的相关理论模型和方法的阶段, 但健康跨期决策具有领域特异性, 沿袭金钱领域理论模型和方法, 导致该领域在研究方法和结果上存在较大的不一致性。健康跨期决策的行为后果是该领域关注重点, 多数研究均报告个体的低时间折扣率、高未来时间取向与其健康保护行为正相关, 与健康风险行为呈负相关。该领域也关注健康跨期决策的影响机制, 如决策对象和决策主体的核心特征等因素。未来研究亟需发展适用于健康领域的跨期决策模型和研究范式, 明确健康行为与跨期决策偏好的关系, 深入探讨健康跨期决策的内在选择机制, 并在健康行为干预和医疗卫生政策应用方面进行更多的尝试和探索。 相似文献
7.
跨期决策是指人们对时间成本与收益进行权衡, 进而做出评价与选择, 其研究主要围绕时间折扣, 是指与当前或近期的损益相比, 人们赋予未来损益更小的权重。虽然有争议, 但Mischel等人很早就通过著名的“棉花糖实验”证明了延迟满足能力越强的儿童有着更高的学业成就。延迟满足与跨期决策都是在时间维度上进行的决策。研究者通过脑成像技术发现了成人大脑内支持跨期决策的三个神经网络系统, 但关于儿童的研究鲜有报道。这三大脑网络系统都位于额叶皮层, 该皮层在儿童青少年时期快速发育。通过采用横断研究和纵向研究相结合的实验设计, 对处于跨期决策发展关键期的中国儿童青少年人群进行测查和追踪; 借助神经影像技术, 考察跨期决策发展与脑发育的关系; 整合多模态神经影像技术, 构建可以预测跨期决策能力的脑影像指标。 相似文献
8.
成瘾可分为物质成瘾和行为成瘾, 两类成瘾人群在跨期选择上都表现出高时间折扣率的缺陷, 但也有各自的特异性特征。成瘾人群跨期选择缺陷的神经基础主要集中在评估网络(腹内侧前额叶、纹状体、后扣带皮层等)、认知控制网络(前额叶皮层、前扣带皮层等)和预期想象网络(海马、杏仁核等); 可利用心理训练来改善成瘾人群跨期选择缺陷, 其干预方法包括工作记忆训练、预期想象训练、金钱管理指导等。未来研究应该从成瘾者跨期选择缺陷的认知机制、3个神经网络系统的交互作用机理、行为遗传学以及开发有效的干预方法等方面展开大量研究。 相似文献
9.
10.
通过考察时间距离、社会距离和概率距离对跨期选择和风险选择的影响, 探究跨期选择和风险选择心理过程的相似性, 并检验不同心理距离影响决策的相似性。结果发现, 无论是时间距离(实验1)、社会距离(实验2)、还是概率距离(实验3), 心理距离越远, 被试在跨期选择中越倾向于延迟选项, 在风险选择中越倾向于风险选项。研究认为, 在跨期选择和风险选择中, 选项的表征结构和选项整体评价时不同选项特征的相对权重具有相似性。随着心理距离增加, 与高识解相联系的金额特征的相对权重增加, 与低识解相联系的时间和概率特征的相对权重降低, 这使得被试更倾向于选择金额较大的延迟和风险选项。同时, 研究发现三类心理距离对两类决策有相似影响, 进一步验证了不同心理距离的本质相似性。 相似文献
11.
Iris Ikink;Karin Roelofs;Bernd Figner; 《决策行为杂志》2024,37(1):e2354
Time ambiguity—that is, having partially/fully incomplete information about when an outcome will occur—is common in everyday life. A recent study showed that participants preferred options with time-exact delays over options with time-ambiguous delays, a phenomenon they called time-ambiguity aversion. However, the empirical robustness and boundaries of this phenomenon remain unexplored. We conducted three online studies: Study 2 (n = 118) was a replication of Study 1 (n = 76) using preregistered analyses; Study 3 (n = 202; preregistered) was a follow-up study suggested during review. In Studies 1 and 2, participants completed hypothetical choices between €5 today versus later-but-larger (LL) rewards that systematically varied in their amount, delay, and time-ambiguity level (e.g., for a 180 day delay, time ambiguity varied from 179 to 181 to 0–360 days). Effects of time ambiguity on choice were best encoded in an absolute, dose-dependent manner and depended on delays and amounts: Increasing time ambiguity led to more time-exact LL choices at shorter delays but more time-ambiguous LL choices at longer delays. Additionally, time-ambiguity ranges including today were chosen more frequently than ranges excluding today, akin to the present bias in intertemporal choice. Lastly, evidence suggested that more time ambiguity was preferred for smaller LL amounts yet disliked for larger LL amounts. Study 3 demonstrated that time-risk and time-ambiguity preferences are differentiable by giving participants choices involving hypothetical time-exact, time-ambiguous, and time-risky options. Taken together, our results extend the nascent literature on time ambiguity by showing that (i) time-ambiguity preferences are distinguishable from both time-risk and delay preferences and (ii) time ambiguity is not generally aversive, but its impact depends on delay and amount magnitude. 相似文献
12.
Christine R. Harris 《决策行为杂志》2012,25(1):13-28
It frequently has been observed that people discount future rewards relative to present rewards. However, the literature on intertemporal choices involving emotional upsets and losses is fraught with inconsistencies, with some studies finding similar discounting of gains and losses, and others reporting that participants elect to undergo negative experiences sooner rather than later. To help resolve these contradictions, time preferences for different types of aversive experiences (social rejection, embarrassment, pain, monetary and property loss) were examined in five studies. Most participants preferred to postpone monetary and property losses, but intertemporal choices for other unpleasant experiences showed highly variable responses, with some participants deferring them as long as possible, and many electing to experience them immediately. Time preferences for these negative experiences were correlated, but were independent of time preference for rewards. It is argued (following Loewenstein, 1987 ) that anticipation of dread plays a key role in many people's choices about timing of aversive experiences. This interpretation was supported by choices about when to learn of a very unpleasant event whose timing was fixed (Study 3), and by a novel preference reversal (Study 4). Study 5 examined how actual and hypothetical experiences of dread unfolded over time; the results were consistent with a dread‐based interpretation of choices in the preceding studies. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
13.
Binary choice delay discounting tasks require participants to indicate preference between smaller, immediate, and larger, delayed rewards. Previous research indicates that when the delayed reward is shared with others, the delayed outcome is preferred compared with when the outcomes are for the self only, resulting in lower rates of delay discounting. The present series of studies sought to replicate and extend this finding. Study 1 compared delay discounting on a standard task in which both immediate and delayed outcomes are for the self and a group context task where the delayed outcome was shared with one other person. Replicating previous results, group context resulted in lower rates of delay discounting, and this effect was independent of how the shared outcome was presented. Study 2 compared delay discounting on a standard task and a group context task where the immediate outcome was shared. In contrast to Study 1, group context resulted in higher rates of delay discounting, suggesting that preference in intertemporal choice tracks the shared outcome. Moreover, this effect was not independent of how the shared outcome was presented. This is the first study to reveal that group context, when applied to the immediate outcome, can result in higher rates of delay discounting. 相似文献
14.
本研究采用2×3混合实验设计,通过控制时间距离和表征的建构水平,对不同问题启动下的跨时选择进行对比研究。实验结果显示,问题启动是影响跨时选择的重要因素,不同问题启动下的未来结果价值折扣存在显著差异。Why问题启动使个体的时间距离敏感度降低,How问题启动使个体的时间距离敏感度提高。 相似文献