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。     

不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响及其情景依赖性*

研究以Ellsberg选瓶任务为决策材料,探讨了不同任务特征下个体不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响。结果发现,获益情景下:高概率时高、低容忍度个体对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均偏好模糊规避;中概率时低容忍度个体比高容忍度个体表现出更低程度的模糊规避,前者倾向于模糊中立,后者倾向于模糊规避;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊中立。损失情景下:高概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊寻求;中概率时低容忍度比高容忍度个体更偏好模糊寻求,前者倾向于模糊寻求,后者倾向于模糊中立;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊规避。这表明,不确定性容忍度对模糊决策偏好产生作用,但这种作用会受到损益概率和损益结果的影响,具有情景依赖性。     

偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响机制

本研究旨在探讨偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响及影响机制。本研究包括两个实验, 在被试进行决策前, 分别采用图片和短片诱发其与当前决策任务无关的偶然情绪, 然后要求被试完成选择任务, 并从决策结果和决策过程两个角度考察偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响及影响机制。结果发现, 当可选项中不存在1个优势选项时, 与正性情绪相比, 个体在负性情绪下会更倾向于延迟选择, 而个体对决策信息的加工深度在偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响中具有中介作用。这可能是因为相比于正性情绪, 个体在负性情绪下会采用更深入的加工策略, 增加了决策难度, 进而提高了个体的延迟选择倾向。     

认知信息的详尽度与锚定对决策策略的影响

以191名大学生为被试,采用2×3的完全组间设计,探讨不同认知信息详尽度和有无锚定材料条件下大学生决策策略类型的选择。结果发现:(1)认知信息详尽度对被试的决策策略选择的影响显著,被试在低认知信息详尽度水平下倾向于选择采用维度比较策略,而在高认知信息详尽度水平下倾向于选择采用综合比较策略,并且倾向程度差异显著。(2)锚定效应对决策策略选择的影响不显著,认知信息详尽度与锚定的交互作用也不显著。     

注视反映及影响决策偏好的眼动研究

采用眼动研究法探究注视对决策偏好的反映及影响。实验1让被试完成特征判断迫选任务，并记录被试的注视行为。注视可能性分析发现，被试在决策前逐渐将注视转向要选择的选项。实验2采用注视追随反应提示范式研究注视对决策偏好的影响，结果发现被试的选择在缺乏客观决策信息时系统地偏向了随机确定的目标选项。实验结果表明，注视能反映决策偏好的形成过程，也能影响决策偏好。研究结果支持决策信息处理的双阶段理论。     

内隐社会认知:社会性决策的个人背景效应

通过两个实验研究了个人背景对其社会性决策的影响。实验一采用 2× 2混合设计 ,其中被试性别为组间因素 ,策略类型为组内因素 ;结果发现不同性别的被试在选择决策策略时表现出了差异 ,其中男性更倾向于选择“综合比较”的策略 ,但女性却没有表现出对策略的偏向。实验二则选择 14项个人背景资料作为自变量 ,以“才—情”决策倾向为因变量 ,进行多元逐步回归分析 ,结果发现被试的家庭所在地、性别差异以及对自己容貌的评价等变量显著地影响了决策倾向。     

心理距离对跨期选择和风险选择的影响

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。     

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。     

得失情境下的图形框架对跨期选择倾向的影响

为分离言语表述的干扰,实验采用简单选择任务,通过2(图形框架)×2(跨期选择)×2(得失情境)被试内实验设计探讨得失情境下图形框架对个体跨期选择的影响。结果发现:(1)在突出时间条件下,被试更倾向于选择小而即时的选项,而在突出金额条件下,被试选择小而即时和大而延时的概率没有差异;(2)收益情境中,个体更多地选择大而延时的选项,而在损失情境中,个体选择即时损失的概率更高。结果表明,跨期选择中个体的决策偏好会随着得失情境及决策选项描述方式的变化而变化。     

情绪智力及相关变量对职业决策线索加工的影响

以66名应届或往届大学生为被试,运用何小蕾（2004）修订的情绪智力量表和信息板技术探讨了决策时限、选项数量及情绪智力对职业决策过程中线索加工的影响。结果发现：（1）决策时限和选项数量影响职业决策过程中各条线索的平均点击次数和平均加工时间,说明完成信息板任务过程中被试加工线索的策略会因为决策时限和选项数量的变化而发生改变;（2）情绪智力水平对职业决策中的信息搜索模式有显著影响,高情绪智力水平者倾向于采用基于选项的复杂搜索策略;（3）情绪智力的各维度对职业决策中信息加工的平均决策时间、搜索深度和搜索模式具有不同的影响,其中管理情绪、表达情绪对决策时间和搜索深度均有显著影响,理解情绪对决策时间有显著影响,利用情绪对搜索深度和搜索模式有显著影响,而情绪发展对决策时间有显著影响。     

行为决策中模糊规避研究的回顾与展望

模糊规避是指在相同奖赏的情况下,决策者会偏好有精确概率的事件而不是从主观上判断具有相同模糊概率的事件。自从Ellsberg提出模糊规避的概念以来,模糊规避已在行为决策研究的多个领域得到广泛验证。本文梳理了近五十年来关于模糊规避的研究文献,系统分析了模糊规避的研究范式、心理机制和影响因素,同时提出了未来的研究展望。     

模糊规避的形成机制：基于可评价性假设的视角

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。本研究使用同时评价、单独评价的研究范式从随机事件和自然事件两个领域来探讨模糊规避的形成机制。研究结果表明,当风险事件和模糊事件同时评价时,个体倾向于模糊规避;当风险事件和模糊事件单独评价时,模糊规避会消失。     

Task formats and ambiguity aversion

This paper proposes that task format (choosing or rejecting) moderates the effect of ambiguity aversion. Specifically, an ambiguous option is more attractive in a choosing task than in a rejecting task compared with a risky option. The author performed three experiments to test the propositions. In the first experiment, participants showed less ambiguity aversion when they had to choose a preferred option (risky or ambiguous) compared with when they had to reject an option they preferred less. In the second experiment with a monetary incentive, participants had to form a cash‐equivalent estimate for both a risky gamble and an ambiguous gamble in a traditional Ellsberg scenario. The ambiguous option emerged as more attractive than the risky option in the choosing task compared with the rejecting task. The third experiment showed that the participants' decision rationale mediated the effect of the task format on choice. These three experiments support the proposition that task formats moderate the effect of ambiguity aversion. On the basis of the findings, the author provides suggestions for practice and further research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decision-making under uncertainty: biases and Bayesians

Animals (including humans) often face circumstances in which the best choice of action is not certain. Environmental cues may be ambiguous, and choices may be risky. This paper reviews the theoretical side of decision-making under uncertainty, particularly with regard to unknown risk (ambiguity). We use simple models to show that, irrespective of pay-offs, whether it is optimal to bias probability estimates depends upon how those estimates have been generated. In particular, if estimates have been calculated in a Bayesian framework with a sensible prior, it is best to use unbiased estimates. We review the extent of evidence for and against viewing animals (including humans) as Bayesian decision-makers. We pay particular attention to the Ellsberg Paradox, a classic result from experimental economics, in which human subjects appear to deviate from optimal decision-making by demonstrating an apparent aversion to ambiguity in a choice between two options with equal expected rewards. The paradox initially seems to be an example where decision-making estimates are biased relative to the Bayesian optimum. We discuss the extent to which the Bayesian paradigm might be applied to the evolution of decision-makers and how the Ellsberg Paradox may, with a deeper understanding, be resolved.     

Managers' variance investigation decisions: an experimental examination of probabilistic and outcome ambiguity

Information ambiguity is prevalent in organizations and may influence management decisions. This study examines, given imprecise probabilities or outcomes, how managers decide which department's performance to investigate further when they are provided with performance benchmarks expressed in numerical intervals. Seventy‐nine MBA students participated in two experiments involving investigation decisions. We presented participants with interval benchmarks of a firm's expenses. Being below or above the benchmark should have been seen as equally negative. We found that, when facing outcome ambiguity, our participants consistently preferred to investigate further those departments whose performance was described as having an ambiguous outcome (when the outcome's range was centered either below or above the interval benchmark). However, when facing probabilistic ambiguity, there were two predominant choice patterns: consistently choosing to investigate the department whose performance is described with an ambiguous probability, or consistently choosing to investigate the department with unambiguous performance. To gain further insight, we conducted a follow‐up study collecting written protocols of participants' reasons for making choices involving ambiguous performance information. The results show that our participants displayed similar decision‐making processes when facing outcome ambiguity and probabilistic ambiguity. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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。