得失框架效应的分离—— 来自收益与损失型跨期选择的研究

本研究通过创设收益和损失跨期选择情境, 采用不同表征方式(得框架、失框架)的跨期选择任务, 分别探讨了收益和损失情境下的跨期选择是否存在得失框架效应, 及其是否会受任务难度的影响。结果发现：(1)收益型跨期选择只在任务容易时存在得失框架效应, 与失框架相比, 被试在得框架下选择即时获益的概率更高; 任务困难时得失框架效应消失(实验a); (2)损失型跨期选择中不存在得失框架效应(实验b)。结果表明, 得失框架效应在损、益型跨期选择中出现了分离, 收益型跨期选择中的得失框架效应的内在认知机制很可能与风险决策中的框架效应类似并且是一种较为初级的认知加工过程。     

得失不对称：跨期选择中自我-他人决策差异

采用跨期选择任务范式,考察得失情境下自我–他人决策差异。结果发现：（1）为自己决策比为他人决策更偏好于选择即刻选项;（2）损失情境比获益情境下更偏好于选择即刻选项;（3）获益情境下为自己决策与为他人决策在选择即刻选项上不存在显著差异,而损失情境下为自己决策比为他人决策更偏好于选择即刻选项,表明得失情境下自我–他人决策差异存在不对称性。     

得失框架下时间和风险对跨期选择的影响

本研究通过设置获得框架和损失框架下跨期选择情景,采用选择滴定法计算个体的主观值,分别探讨了跨期选择是否存在得损失框架效应,以及是否会受时间与风险的影响。结果发现:(1)跨期选择存在得损失框架效应,与损失框架相比,被试在获得框架下选择近期目标的概率更高、反应更快、主观值更小;(2)时间、风险会和得损失框架效应交互影响跨期选择。在获得框架下,随着时间点的延长,低风险时被试才更有可能做远期选择;在损失框架下,随着时间点的缩短,中高等风险时被试才更有可能做近期选择。结果表明框架效应、时间与风险可以影响跨期选择,支持了双系统评价理论。     

压力使人短视?来自跨期决策的证据

跨期决策是指个体对不同时间点上的收益或损失进行的权衡和选择。本研究探讨了日常慢性压力知觉和实验室急性压力操作对跨期决策的影响。研究一通过问卷调查发现高压力感与跨期决策中的短期偏好有关;研究二采用社会压力测试范式(TSST)在实验室进行压力操作,同样发现压力组被试比控制组更偏好"小而近"的选项。研究认为,压力使人在跨期决策中倾向于短视选择,可能与双系统激活模式和自我控制资源损耗有关。     

享受当下,还是留待未来?——时间观对跨期决策的影响

本研究通过三组实验考察了线性和循环两种时间观对跨期决策的影响。实验1表明与循环时间观的人相比,线性时间观的人在跨期决策时更倾向于选择近期选项(假设1)。实验2进一步验证假设1,并且验证了时间感知的中介作用(假设2)。实验3考察了时间标记(有标记VS.无标记)对主效应的调节作用(假设3)。实验结果发现,在无标记情境下,线性时间观的人们会比循环时间观的人们更偏好近期选项;而在有标记情境下,这种效应会被减弱。本研究揭示了时间观可以作为个体跨期决策偏好的一种影响因素,并丰富了主观时间感知角度的跨期决策研究。     

高低拖延者的跨期选择差异：基于ERP的研究

本研究采用跨期选择任务,运用ERP技术考察了高低拖延者的跨期选择差异。结果发现:高低拖延组的反应时不存在显著差异,但高拖延组选择即时选项的概率显著高于低拖延组;低拖延组被试在N1成分上出现了右偏侧化效应;高拖延组的P2峰值显著低于低拖延组,且在损失情景下出现了更大的LPP波幅,而低拖延组正好相反。这说明高拖延组被试更加偏好即时奖励,同时在实验任务中投入了更少的注意资源,并且对消极情绪体验的唤醒度更高。     

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。     

识解水平对跨期选择和风险选择的影响

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。     

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。     

劝捐策略和框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响

采用两个3×2完全随机实验设计,考察劝捐策略和目标框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响,结果表明：（1）劝捐策略和目标框架效应的主效应显著,信用劝捐被试捐赠更多,决策时间更短,损失目标框架比收益目标框架的被试决策时间更短,捐赠更多,被试在信用X损失框架情境中捐赠最多,反应时最短;（2）劝捐策略和框架效应的交互效应均显著,情感策略受框架效应影响较大,在损失框架下被试反应时更短,捐赠更多。     

Temporal discounting in "gain now-lose later" and "lose now-gain later" conditions

Studies on temporal discounting typically involve choosing between two outcomes of the same sign, i.e., positive or negative. For example, participants often are given a choice between a smaller, sooner gain and a larger, but later gain, or (less commonly) the options may be a sooner, larger loss and a later, but smaller loss. In contrast, participants in this study (N= 129; 66 women and 63 men, volunteers from Warsaw, Poland, all employed, with college education, ranging in age from 23 to 50 years, M=32.3 yr., SD=7.4) had to make a yes-or-no decision as to whether they would accept a financial offer involving a combination of a gain and a loss. This offer could be either an immediate gain to be followed later by a larger loss or an immediate loss followed later by a larger gain. Despite the substantial differences between the options in the present study and those in typical discounting studies, the same hyperboloid discounting function that describes choice between immediate and delayed gains also accurately described choice in the substantially different situations presented in the present study. In addition, steeper discounting was observed with a smaller delayed outcome than with a larger delayed outcome.     

Testing the effect of risk on intertemporal choice in the Chinese cultural context

Previous studies using Western samples have found that introducing uncertainty to an intertemporal choice decreases the degree of discounting future rewards. The authors of this article examined the effect of risk on intertemporal choice using Chinese participants and found that respondents preferred the smaller but sooner (SS) outcome to the larger but later (LL) one in the presence of risk, which indicates that risk increases rather than decreases the degree of discounting future rewards. Thus, variations in response patterns between different cultural groups suggest that culture may play an important role in intertemporal choice and researchers should delve into this topic from an emic rather than an etic perspective.     

情绪对跨期决策的影响：来自单维占优模型的解释

跨期决策的研究表明, 积极情绪和消极情绪状态下的跨期决策行为存在显著差异。本研究从单维占优模型的角度, 揭示情绪影响跨期决策的过程机制。实验1通过诱发被试的积极和消极情绪, 发现积极情绪下被试的时间折扣率更低, 有更强的选择延迟选项的倾向。实验2运用“模拟天平任务”测量了跨期决策时的维度间差异比较, 检验单维占优模型对情绪影响跨期决策的解释性。结果发现, 维度间差异比较在情绪对跨期决策的影响中起中介作用。实验3a和实验3b分别运用时间和金钱启动策略操纵维度间差异比较过程, 再次验证单维占优模型的解释作用。 结果发现, 情绪对跨期决策的效应随着时间和金钱的启动而消失, 进一步支持了维度间差异比较的中介作用。本研究从决策过程的角度, 揭示了情绪影响跨期决策的心理机制, 并进一步为单维占优模型对跨期决策行为的解释性增加了支持性证据。     

When Intertemporal Rewards Are Hedonic,Larger Units of Wait Time Boost Patience

In intertemporal choices between smaller‐sooner (SS) and larger‐later (LL) rewards, five studies reveal that patience for the LL option is influenced by an interactive effect of the measurement units used to express wait time (large vs. small) and the type of the reward (hedonic vs. utilitarian). Specifically, larger time units boost patience, but more so when rewards are hedonic rather than utilitarian. In line with the numerosity heuristic, the effect of time units on patience is mediated by larger time units shrinking wait time perception. This effect arises because hedonic (vs. utilitarian) rewards promote a reliance on heuristics rather than systematic calculations. Therefore, a more calculative mindset diminishes the effect of units even for hedonic rewards and eliminates the hedonic‐utilitarian asymmetry. These results contribute to research on numerosity, intertemporal choice, and hedonic‐utilitarian differences, and offer a simple tool for practitioners to influence patience.     

Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Choice Reveal Different Facets of Decision Process

Two experiments were conducted to examine decision process in intertemporal choice with spatial and temporal action dynamic measures generated from cursor movement. The effects of the context valence (gain and loss) and magnitude of the payoffs (small and large) were investigated. Other factors examined were differences between decisions made at versus away from the indifference point and response variability dependent on what was selected (delayed versus non‐delayed/less‐delayed payoff). Using principal components analysis, decision process is described with three orthogonal components. General decision difficulty is encompassed by two components: (1) Conflict, depicted by Idle time and deviations from a direct choice path, and (2) decision uncertainty or Wavering, described by left‐right directional flips. A general Locomotion factor was also present. In Experiment 1, Conflict was best at capturing the gain/loss and magnitude context effects. Greater Conflict was observed in the loss context and the small magnitude condition. When choices were closer to the indifference point, Wavering was most salient. In Experiment 2, when selecting larger, delayed payoffs, both Conflict and Wavering increased suggesting that controlling the temptation of selecting the sooner, smaller reward entails effort. By analyzing trajectories, the study advances knowledge of the construct validity of different action dynamic measures and supports the distinction of decision uncertainty and decision conflict. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of self–other decision-making on time-based intertemporal choice

The effects of self–other decision-making on intertemporal choice have been revealed in many studies using a monetary outcome. However, the outcome of intertemporal choice is not restricted to money; time is also a scarce and nonrenewable resource outcome. Thus, we conducted a series of experiments to address the effects of self–other decision-making on time-based intertemporal choice, a type of intertemporal choice that uses time as an outcome. Over the course of three experiments, differences in self–other decision-making were evidenced. Participants who made decisions for others were more likely to prefer the smaller but sooner (SS) option over the larger but later (LL) option and considered the gain of the SS option to be significantly greater than that of the LL option. Participants who made decisions for themselves were likely to prefer the LL option over the SS option. However, they considered the gains of the LL and the SS option to be indifferent. Changing the role of decision-making could affect the ability of individuals to consider the future consequences of their decisions. The effects of self–other decision-making on time-based intertemporal choice could be explained by the accounts of economic reasoning and construal level theory. The findings indicated that the effects of self–other decision-making on time-based intertemporal choice, which could be generated simply by rewording questions, can help individuals make optimal long-term choices without the need for increased control.     

跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效：亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究

跨期选择是对不同时间点的得失的权衡与选择。伊索寓言《蚂蚁和蚱蜢》假借群居型昆虫的跨期选择偏爱暗喻投资未来的慢策略比只顾眼前的快策略更利于生存。用跨期选择领域通用的语言解读这一寓言便是：选择大而迟选项的蚂蚁比选择小而早选项的蚱蜢更可能扛过严冬而生存下来。为了探索何种跨期选择策略更有助于我们扛过疫情,本研究调查了亚非欧美大洋洲这5大洲18个国家共计26355名受测者对混合得失双结果的跨期选择偏爱,测量了人们平时和疫时跨期选择偏爱的变易程度(2类变易的程度指标),以及人们自评的扛疫成效。跨文化比较结果的主要发现是：不同通货的选择变易程度(指标1)和不同时期的选择变易程度(指标2)能联合预测中国/新加坡文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效;不同时期的选择变易程度(指标2)也可以单独预测印度/马来西亚/菲律宾/尼日利亚文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效;这2类选择偏爱变易的程度指标不能预测其他文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效(或者预测方向和假设相反)。基于易经“穷则变,变则通”的要旨和跨国比较的发现,我们认为：面临历史危机时善于变通的特长抑或成就了中华民族特有的竞争优势;在应对危机时,与中国文化距离越相近的国家或民族抑或也能...     

The predictive accuracy of intertemporal‐choice models

How do people choose between a smaller reward available sooner and a larger reward available later? Past research has evaluated models of intertemporal choice by measuring goodness of fit or identifying which decision‐making anomalies they can accommodate. An alternative criterion for model quality, which is partly antithetical to these standard criteria, is predictive accuracy. We used cross‐validation to examine how well 10 models of intertemporal choice could predict behaviour in a 100‐trial binary‐decision task. Many models achieved the apparent ceiling of 85% accuracy, even with smaller training sets. When noise was added to the training set, however, a simple logistic‐regression model we call the difference model performed particularly well. In many situations, between‐model differences in predictive accuracy may be small, contrary to long‐standing controversy over the modelling question in research on intertemporal choice, but the simplicity and robustness of the difference model recommend it to future use.     

负折扣现象:跨期决策中的自我-他人决策差异

负折扣现象作为一种违背时间折扣假定的现象越来越多地引起研究者关注。本文通过两种指标考察了为自己决策和为他人决策在负折扣现象上的差异。实验1运用二择一选择范式考察人们在为自己决策和为他人决策时对于何时发生负性事件的时间偏好。结果发现,相比较于为他人决策,为自己决策时被试更倾向于选择早些发生负性事件,即更容易产生负折扣现象。实验2运用测量时间折扣率的经典范式考察了人们在为自己决策和为他人决策时的时间折扣率。结果发现,为自己决策时比为他人决策时的时间折扣率更小,更容易出现负折扣率。总体结果表明,为自己决策比为他人决策更容易出现负折扣现象。从情绪卷入的角度看,我们推测,为自己决策时由于更多的预期负性情绪卷入,从而导致更容易产生负折扣现象。