“先扬后抑”vs.“先抑后扬”:反馈顺序对决策信心建构的影响

本研究采用2×3被试内设计,通过操纵不同性质信息的反馈比例和反馈顺序,重点考察了反馈顺序对决策信心动态建构的影响。结果表明:(1)在不同反馈比例条件下,当个体接收到的正性反馈多于负性反馈时,个体的决策信心上升,反之则下降;当个体接收到的正性反馈等于负性反馈时,个体的决策信心下降,表现出"负性偏向";(2)"先扬后抑"与"先抑后扬"的信息反馈顺序对决策信心的动态建构产生了不同影响,表现出类似于"近因效应"的现象,"惊讶假设(surprise hypothesis)"可为此提供解释。本研究表明,在决策信心的动态建构过程中,信息的反馈顺序发挥着重要作用。     

决策信心校准水平对元认知监控作用的影响

决策信心是个体对自身决策正确性的主观评价,是对决策过程的元认知体验。决策信心校准指决策信心水平与实际的决策正确率之间的匹配程度,其指标有信心水平和决策正确率的相关系数及Type II信号检测论中的ROC曲线下面积（Aroc）等。已有研究发现进行决策信心评估能够增强对当前或后续决策的元认知监控作用,但目前尚不清楚这种效应是否依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平。本研究通过设置知觉决策后是否进行决策信心评估（有信心评估与无信心评估）两种条件,考察个体决策信心的校准水平（Aroc）对元认知监控作用的影响。结果显示：1）与无信心评估条件相比,有信心评估的决策反应时显著增长,决策正确率显著提高（p<0.005）;2）Aroc与有、无信心评估条件下决策正确率的增加值显著正相关（r=0.25,p=0.034）,且高Aroc组的决策正确率增加值显著高于低Aroc组（p<0.05）。结果表明,在知觉决策过程中加入决策信心评估具有增强元认知监控作用的效应,体现为决策时间的增长和决策正确率的提高。并且,这种效应的大小依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平,校准水平越高元认知监控作用越好。     

空间位置对大学生逃生决策中从众行为的影响

空间位置与从众行为是影响紧急情况下人员疏散的两个重要因素,该研究在于探讨 这两个因素在人们的逃生决策中究竟如何发挥影响作用.研究采用3（空间位置）×4（人数分布）被试内实验设计对随机选取的60名大学生进行研究.结果发现,空间位置和人数分布均对疏散行为有显著影响,且两者之间存在显著的交互作用.多数人在对逃生出口选择对,距离出口的远近（所处的空间位置）是最先考虑的因素,有少部分人会表现出从众行为,而忽略空间位置.当所处位置在中间时,人数分布成为影响决策的重要因素.这说明空间位置和人数分布影响了人们的从众行为,进而影响逃生决策.     

焦虑对社会决策行为的影响

焦虑是在人类日常生活中常见的一种负性情绪。探讨焦虑情绪在个人生活和工作中扮演的角色, 是生理学界和心理学界的一项重要课题。过往研究显示焦虑水平的提高会对社会能力和社交技巧造成显著的影响。在社会决策领域中, 这种影响的具体表现是高焦虑者比低焦虑者更倾向于采取回避风险的策略。但是, 过往研究主要关心包含经济因素的社会决策, 而对其他类型的社会行为的探索存在不足。以下问题值得未来研究者们关注：在个体层面上, 高焦虑者是否会更容易受到外界信息的影响, 表现出更强的从众行为和权威依从倾向, 与他人进行社会比较或社会竞争的动机是否会被削弱？在群体层面上, 高焦虑者是否更容易表现出人际信任, 以及是否会表现出更强的服从集体倾向？考察这些问题将会为针对焦虑情绪的认知研究和临床研究起到促进作用。     

大学生亲社会行为决策中自尊与情绪信息的交互作用

采用自编亲社会行为决策材料,以行为决策对象的被选频次为指标,通过对65名男女大学生的研究,结果发现：1）在阈上和阈下的＂图-词＂启动范式下,均存在显著的情绪启动效应,且实验性情绪变化明显。2）在正性图片启动下,自尊水平和情绪效价对亲社会行为决策均无显著影响,但二者的交互作用显著,低自尊个体在负性情绪下的亲社会行为决策存在显著性差异;行为决策对象对大学生亲社会行为决策有显著影响,与自尊水平、情绪效价之间的交互效应不显著;在负性图片启动下,自尊水平、情绪效价、行为决策对象以及三者的交互作用对亲社会行为决策均无显著影响。3）总体上,大学生亲社会行为决策受自尊水平与情绪效价的交互作用影响,也受行为决策对象及其与自尊水平、情绪效价的三次交互作用的影响。     

社会价值取向与反馈对动态社会两难决策的影响：以水资源两难决策为例

以水资源两难情景为实验任务,探讨了社会价值取向与反馈在社会两难决策中的作用.结果表明: (1)社会价值取向在决策者的两难决策行为中起着非常重要的作用.合作型个体比非合作型个体显著地表现出更多的合作行为.个体的社会价值取向可以作为预测两难决策行为的一个重要因素: (2)不同的反馈类型对具有不同社会价值取向的决策者的决策行为影响不同.非合作型个体受反馈信息影响比较明显,而合作型个体则不易受他人的决策信息影响.     

愤怒和恐惧情绪对个体危机决策的影响

危机情景下个体和群体的决策行为已经成为学术界关注的焦点。为探讨愤怒和恐惧情绪对个体危机决策的影响,本研究采用实验和问卷调查相结合的方法,通过观看电影片段的方式有效地诱发了愤怒和恐惧两种情绪,在问卷调查的基础上编制危机决策情景进行研究,结果发现：（1）恐惧情绪状态下,被试的危机决策时间显著长于其在愤怒情绪状态下的危机决策时间,且情绪变量和性别变量在危机决策时间上存在显著的交互作用;（2）恐惧情绪状态下,女性被试的危机决策时间显著长于其在愤怒情绪状态下的危机决策时间,并且也显著地长于男性被试的危机决策时间。同时,男性被试对其危机决策的满意程度显著地高于女性被试,且情绪变量和性别变量在危机决策自信程度指标上存在显著的交互作用;（3）随着方案数量的增加,尤其当方案数量为4时,被试的危机决策时间较其他两种情况显著增长。     

内隐职业性别刻板印象、信息完整性对大学生职业决策过程的影响

采用内隐联想测验对150名大学生进行分组,选出高、低职业性别刻板印象组被试共74名（各37名）,运用信息板技术深入考察内隐职业性别刻板印象、信息完整性对个体职业决策过程的具体影响。结果表明：（1）内隐职业性别刻板印象显著影响个体职业决策的决策时间、探索深度以及探索模式;（2）信息完整性对个体职业决策的信息探索深度、探索模式以及决策满意度有显著影响,且高内隐职业性别刻板印象个体的决策满意度随信息完整性的减少而降低;（3）高内隐职业性别刻板印象的个体在信息不完整的情况下会倾向于进行更深入的信息探索。     

社会距离与合作指数对不同年龄青少年合作行为影响的差异

本研究采用重复囚徒困境实验范式,考察了社会距离和合作指数对不同年龄青少年（初中生、高中生和大学生,且每个年龄段的被试数为40名）在博弈决策中的合作行为的影响。结果发现：（1）随着年龄的增加,青少年合作行为的总体趋势表现为下降;（2）社会距离对大学生的合作行为的正向作用显著,而中学生的合作行为却不受其影响;（3）个体合作率会受到合作指数的促进作用,但这种促进作用在大学生中表现的更为显著。即随年龄增长,个体会更少的采取合作行为,并且个体是否采取合作在更大程度上基于当前博弈中的收支情况和与博弈对象之间的社会距离。     

情绪、职业数量对不同职业生涯延迟满足大学生职业决策过程的影响

为探究情绪与职业数量对不同职业生涯延迟满足个体职业决策过程的可能潜在影响,分别对40名高、低职业生涯延迟满足倾向的大学生被试诱发正、负性情绪并完成信息板技术模拟的职业决策任务。结果显示:1)高延迟满足个体的搜索深度和搜索模式显著大于低延迟满足个体;2)不同延迟满足的个体在正性情绪或低职业数量条件下都表现出更好的搜索深度和搜索模式;3)在不同情绪及职业数量条件下,高延迟满足个体在不同职业属性间的搜索更多。职业生涯延迟满足倾向作为与未来规划密切联系的概念,揭示了个体职业生涯规划对其职业决策过程可能存在的影响。     

Exploiting the Wisdom of Others to Make Better Decisions: Suspending Judgment Reduces Egocentrism and Increases Accuracy

Although decision makers often consult other people's opinions to improve their decisions, they fail to do so optimally. One main obstacle to incorporating others' opinions efficiently is one's own opinion. We theorize that decision makers could improve their performance by suspending their own judgment. In three studies, participants used others' opinions to estimate uncertain quantities (the caloric value of foods). In the full‐view condition, participants could form independent estimates prior to receiving others' opinions, whereas participants in the blindfold condition could not form prior opinions. We obtained an intriguing blindfold effect. In all studies, the blindfolded participants provided more accurate estimates than did the full‐view participants. Several policy‐capturing measures indicated that the advantage of the blindfolded participants was due to their unbiased weighting of others' opinions. The full‐view participants, in contrast, adhered to their prior opinion and thus failed to exploit the information contained in others' opinions. Moreover, in all three studies, the blindfolded participants were not cognizant of their advantage and expressed less confidence in their estimates than did the full‐view participants. The results are discussed in relation to theories of opinion revision and group decision making. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attitude Change Toward Animal Experimentation in an Academic Setting

Social values theory was used to examine how parents make decisions for their adolescent children. Social values theory states that decision making for others is based on the social value of an action, leading to a norm for how to decide for others, whereas self decisions are influenced by a number of additional factors. Consistent with a risk-aversion norm, in hypothetical health and safety scenarios parents made more risk-averse decisions for their adolescent children than for themselves. Further, the level of risk and inconvenience affected self decisions more than decisions for one's child. A second study showed that the norm was stronger for decisions for one's child than for oneself and more related to parents’ decisions for their child than for themselves. In sum, parents’ decisions for their children seem to be largely determined by a norm stating how they are supposed to decide, at least in the domain of health and safety. Implications for both the judgment and decision making and parenting literatures are discussed.     

Religion and Decisions About Marriage,Residence, Occupation,and Children

Using data from the first wave of the Portraits of American Life Study (PALS), we consider the extent to which people report that religious factors influence their decisions about career choice, marriage, residency, and number of children. We find significant positive relationships between the importance of religion or religious faith and the perceived influence of religious factors on one's choice of occupation, decision about whether or whom to marry, decision about where to live, and decision about how many children to have. We also observe significant interactions between the importance of religion or religious faith and religious tradition, but we find no consistent patterns across our decision‐making outcomes. Our preliminary conclusions raise significant questions about the broader relationship between religion, perception, and decision making.     

Same destination,different paths: When and how does observing others' choices and reasoning alter confidence in our own choices?

Seeing others make the same decision we do does not always increase choice confidence or tell the whole story of social influence when consumers expect to have to publically discuss their choice and reasoning. Instead, consumers' confidence in their publically stated choices can be diminished if observed others make the same choice but justify the choice using different reasoning. This effect occurs because confidence in one's own reasoning is thrown into doubt, rather than due to a desire to affiliate with the observed other. These effects are eliminated in both private choice contexts and in rejection versus selection tasks.     

Self‐regulation of consumer decision making and behavior: The role of implementation intentions

People may use the self-regulatory strategy of forming implementation intentions (i.e., if-then plans) to make better consumer decisions and facilitate the translation of those decisions into action. First, research on the mechanisms and effects of implementation intentions is reviewed. Second, we discuss how implementation intentions can be used to improve consumer decision making by promoting attention control and information elaboration, and overcoming disruptive influences. Third, we consider the various problems that militate against the enactment of one's decisions, and evidence is presented to show that implementation intentions are still effective even when goal attainment does not seem to be amenable to self-regulation. Finally, potential moderators of implementation intention effects are discussed.     

Analytic Confidence and Political Decision‐Making: Theoretical Principles and Experimental Evidence From National Security Professionals

When making decisions under uncertainty, it is important to distinguish between the probability that a judgment is true and the confidence analysts possess in drawing their conclusions. Yet analysts and decision‐makers often struggle to define “confidence” in this context, and many ways that scholars use this term do not necessarily facilitate decision‐making under uncertainty. To help resolve this confusion, we argue for disaggregating analytic confidence along three dimensions: reliability of available evidence, range of reasonable opinion, and responsiveness to new information. After explaining how these attributes hold different implications for decision‐making in principle, we present survey experiments examining how analysts and decision‐makers employ these ideas in practice. Our first experiment found that each conception of confidence distinctively influenced national security professionals' evaluations of high‐stakes decisions. Our second experiment showed that inexperienced assessors of uncertainty could consistently discriminate among our conceptions of confidence when making political forecasts. We focus on national security, where debates about defining “confidence levels” have clear practical implications. But our theoretical framework generalizes to nearly any area of political decision‐making, and our empirical results provide encouraging evidence that analysts and decision‐makers can grasp these abstract elements of uncertainty.     

Numeracy as a Predictor of Adaptive Risky Decision Making

Numeracy or one's ability to appropriately process and use numerical information has been shown to be an important individual difference factor in decision making. The current study utilized a risky decision‐making task (called the “cups task”) in which choices are made to both earn and avoid losing hypothetical money. Critically, this design allowed investigators to examine numeracy‐related differences in adaptive decision‐making as measured by sensitivity to expected value (EV) differences over 54 paired‐choice trials—some in which it was advantageous to take a risk and some in which it was not. Results showed that in an undergraduate sample of 114 individuals, the less numerate took more risks and were less sensitive to varying EV levels than the more numerate, especially when it was disadvantageous to take a risk and when the choice involved a potential loss (rather than a gain). These results are consistent with a dual processing account in which the more numerate are much better than the less numerate at extracting the precise affective “gist” of the numerical information, which is then used to determine the goodness or badness of a particular choice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The gap between medical and monetary choices under risk persists in decisions for others

Decisions under risk in the medical domain have been found to systematically diverge from decisions in the monetary domain. When making choices between monetary options, people commonly rely on a decision strategy that trades off outcomes with their probabilities; when making choices between medical options, people tend to neglect probability information. In two experimental studies, we tested to what extent differences between medical and monetary decisions also emerge when the decision outcomes affect another person. Using a risky choice paradigm for medical and monetary decisions, we compared hypothetical decisions that participants made for themselves to decisions for a socially distant other (Study 1) and to recommendations as financial advisor or doctor (Study 2). In addition, we examined people's information search in a condition in which information about payoff distributions had to be learned from experiential sampling. Formal modeling and analyses of search behavior revealed a similarly pronounced gap between medical and monetary decisions in decisions for others as in decisions for oneself. Our results suggest that when making medical decisions, people try to avoid the worst outcome while neglecting its probability—even when the outcomes affect others rather than themselves.     

Single-process versus multiple-strategy models of decision making: Evidence from an information intrusion paradigm

When decision makers are confronted with different problems and situations, do they use a uniform mechanism as assumed by single-process models (SPMs) or do they choose adaptively from a set of available decision strategies as multiple-strategy models (MSMs) imply? Both frameworks of decision making have gathered a lot of support, but only rarely have they been contrasted with each other. Employing an information intrusion paradigm for multi-attribute decisions from givens, SPM and MSM predictions on information search, decision outcomes, attention, and confidence judgments were derived and tested against each other in two experiments. The results consistently support the SPM view: Participants seemingly using a “take-the-best” (TTB) strategy do not ignore TTB-irrelevant information as MSMs would predict, but adapt the amount of information searched, choose alternative choice options, and show varying confidence judgments contingent on the quality of the “irrelevant” information. The uniformity of these findings underlines the adequacy of the novel information intrusion paradigm and comprehensively promotes the notion of a uniform decision making mechanism as assumed by single-process models.