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。     

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。     

调节模式对选择超载的影响及其机制：一个有中介的调节模型

当前,选择超载领域研究的焦点已从验证其是否存在,转向至其何时存在,即边界条件的探讨。本研究基于调节模式理论,分别以决策后悔和延迟选择作为选择超载的指标,开展两个实验探查选择超载存在的调节模式条件及所涉及的内在机制。实验1以决策后悔作指标,运用量表测试法操纵调节模式,初步探讨调节模式对选择超载的影响,结果发现调节模式调节了选项集与决策后悔的关系,即对评估模式的个体来说,面对大选项集比小选项集时体验到更强的后悔情绪,出现了选择超载,而对运动模式的个体而言,两种条件下的决策后悔无显著差异;实验2以延迟选择作指标,通过任务启动法操纵调节模式,进一步探讨调节模式对选择超载的影响及其机制,结果发现调节模式调节了选项集与延迟选择的关系,即对评估模式的个体来说,面对大选项集比小选项集时更倾向于延迟选择,出现了选择超载,而对运动模式的个体而言,两种条件下的延迟选择偏好无显著差异,进一步有中介的调节模型分析表明选择难度可以部分解释这种效应。总之,通过采用不同方法操纵调节模式,选取不同的选择超载指标,数据结果都一致支持：评估模式的个体比运动模式的个体更容易出现选择超载,选择难度在其中发挥着一定的中介作用。     

延迟折扣的认知与神经机制:特质性与状态性研究取向

延迟折扣是指与当前或近期的获益(或损失)相比,人们总是倾向于赋予将来获益(或损失)更小的权重。为什么人们在跨期选择中会表现出冲动性行为?怎样才能让人"目光远大",而避免"鼠目寸光"呢?这些都是延迟折扣研究力求解决的问题。近几年,本课题组利用行为、ERP、多模态MRI等技术,从特质性和状态性研究角度出发,系统考察延迟折扣的影响因素、认知机制和神经基础。首先,从特质性角度,考察了跨期选择中价值评估和自我控制加工的神经分离、立即选项与延迟选项的神经表征与预测、调控方式对延迟折扣作用的神经机制;其次,从状态性角度,考察了框架效应、贫富线索等对延迟折扣的影响以及预期情绪对延迟折扣的调控机理。最后,根据特质性因素(控制能力、时间感知、识解水平等)和状态性因素(框架效应、贫富线索、预期情绪等)对延迟折扣的影响及调控机制,提出了延迟折扣可塑性的研究思路。本课题组的研究对于延迟折扣认知与神经机制的理论建构具有重要的科学价值,对于延迟折扣的可塑性及临床应用也有重要的指导意义。     

移动购物更快吗?决策场景与思维模式的相容性

既有文献对消费者延迟选择影响因素的研究, 主要集中于决策复杂度、决策者特质或情绪, 少有对决策场景进行深入探讨。互联网购物时代, PC端与手机端已成为重要的消费场景。针对手机端是否会加快消费者决策过程的问题目前也存在不一致的结论。本文引入决策双系统理论, 力图解释以往看似冲突的结论。消费者的购买决策模式, 不仅会受到决策任务(产品价格)的影响, 还会受到决策场景(购买终端)影响。当场景与决策任务使消费者启动的思维模式相一致时, 会提升决策流畅度, 降低延迟选择。本文发现, 移动端(PC端)与低(高)价格产品更容易激发相容的经验性(理性)思维, 降低延迟选择倾向。反之, 则会同时启动两种相左的决策思维, 增加延迟选择倾向。本文从场景启动与价格启动视角, 将以往消费者单一的决策思维模式, 拓展到多因素启动的思维模式相容性问题; 同时本文通过探究延迟选择问题, 对价格策略与场景化营销带来启示。     

恐惧降低跨期选择的耐心吗?——来自行为实验的证据

情绪是决策过程中的重要因素,但具体的恐惧情绪对跨期选择决策的影响还缺乏深入研究。在实验中,将大学生被试随机分配到恐惧组和中性组,他们在接受指定的情绪刺激后进行跨期选择,并获得与其偏好兼容的报酬。在此之前,两组被试在无情绪刺激下和虚拟回报条件下完成了同样的跨期选择任务。结果表明:(1)选择的视频能够有效地操纵恐惧情绪;(2)是否有真实回报并不影响被试的跨期选择行为;(3)基于组内和组间的比较都证明恐惧情绪显著地降低了等待的耐心,体现为更高的折现率,意味着恐惧者在获取金钱上更加短视。     

权力对延迟选择的影响

本研究旨在考察权力对延迟选择的影响, 并探讨决策难度在其中的调节作用以及决策过程的中介作用。两个实验均先操纵个体的权力状态, 然后再请被试完成随后的延迟选择任务。结果发现, 决策难度可调节权力对延迟选择的影响, 当决策困难时, 高权力者具有更低的延迟倾向, 当决策容易时, 权力的影响消失。决策过程的加工变异性可中介权力对延迟选择的影响。结果表明, 低权力者比高权力者具有更高的延迟倾向(尤其当决策困难时), 不同权力水平者在决策过程上的差异或可部分解释此种现象。     

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。     

厌恶和恐惧情绪对跨期选择的不同影响：基于ERP的研究

本研究运用事件相关电位技术(ERPs)考察厌恶和恐惧情绪对跨期选择的影响。其中,厌恶和恐惧情绪采用情绪面孔图片进行启动,分析跨期选择任务中评估阶段所诱发的ERP成分。行为结果发现,与中性面孔相比,厌恶面孔启动使个体倾向于选择立即奖赏。ERP结果发现,在选项评估阶段,厌恶面孔比中性和恐惧面孔启动诱发更大的P2、P3和LPP波幅。这说明,厌恶情绪促使个体投入更多的注意和动机资源对跨期选项进行评估,进而使个体倾向即时满足。     

厌恶和恐惧情绪对跨期选择的不同影响：基于ERP的研究

本研究运用事件相关电位技术(ERPs)考察厌恶和恐惧情绪对跨期选择的影响。其中,厌恶和恐惧情绪采用情绪面孔图片进行启动,分析跨期选择任务中评估阶段所诱发的ERP成分。行为结果发现,与中性面孔相比,厌恶面孔启动使个体倾向于选择立即奖赏。ERP结果发现,在选项评估阶段,厌恶面孔比中性和恐惧面孔启动诱发更大的P2、P3和LPP波幅。这说明,厌恶情绪促使个体投入更多的注意和动机资源对跨期选项进行评估,进而使个体倾向即时满足。     

The lack of dominance and choice deferral: Choosing to defer to cope with the feeling of being out of control

The present study aimed to explore whether emotional dominance can also account for choice deferral. This research manipulated emotional dominance through the difference in attractiveness among current alternatives in Experiment 1 and the readability of fonts for describing current options in Experiment 2, to investigate the role of dominance in choice deferral. The results revealed that increasingly submissive decision environments were related to more choice of deferral options. Mediation analyses indicated that dominance could mediate the effects of experimental manipulations on choice deferral, and that the actual choice of a deferral option was associated with more increase in dominance of retrospective emotion. The results indicate that dominance plays an important role in choice deferral and that choosing to defer can minimize the explicit confrontation of being out of control.     

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.     

The dynamics of deferred decision

Decision makers are often unable to choose between the options that they are offered. In these settings they typically defer their decision, that is, delay the decision to a later point in time or avoid the decision altogether. In this paper, we outline eight behavioral findings regarding the causes and consequences of choice deferral that cognitive theories of decision making should be able to capture. We show that these findings can be accounted for by a deferral-based time limit applied to existing sequential sampling models of preferential choice. Our approach to modeling deferral as a time limit in a sequential sampling model also makes a number of novel predictions regarding the interactions between choice probabilities, deferral probabilities, and decision times, and we confirm these predictions in an experiment. Choice deferral is a key feature of everyday decision making, and our paper illustrates how established theoretical approaches can be used to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this important behavioral phenomenon.     

Age differences in trade-off decisions: older adults prefer choice deferral

Our primary purpose in this study was to examine age differences in using choice deferral when young and older adults made trade-off decisions. Ninety-two young and 92 older adults were asked to make a trade-off decision among four cars or to use choice deferral (i.e., not buy any of these cars and keep looking for other cars). High and low emotional trade-off difficulty were manipulated between participants through different attribute labels of available cars. Older adults were more likely than young adults to choose deferral. Older adults who used deferral reported less retrospective negative emotion than those who did not.     

Better Safe than Sorry: Risking Irresponsibility by Seeking Uncertainty

Research findings differ as to whether choosing a risky option is an efficient strategy for decision makers seeking to avoid responsibility for potential failures. A risky choice may leave the final outcome to chance factors, but the decision maker can still be held responsible for choosing risk. Further, it is unclear whether a risky choice is a responsible choice. The present article investigates the putative relationship between risk‐taking and responsibility by drawing a distinction between being responsible for the outcome (R1) versus acting responsibly (R2). Four experiments were performed, in which participants were presented with scenarios describing decision makers facing a choice between a risky (uncertain) option and a riskless (certain) option, framed in terms of losses or equivalent gains. The results showed that decision makers who chose the risky alternative were judged to have acted in a less responsible manner (R2), while still being held equally responsible for the outcome (R1), unless they were ignorant of the risks involved. Choosing risk did not absolve decision makers from blame, despite being less causal and less in control than those who chose the riskless option. Risky decision makers were also judged to be more personally involved. The dissociation between R1 and R2 ratings confirms earlier findings and serves to clarify an alleged relationship between risky choices and responsibility aversion. Framing effects for own choices were found in both scenarios. In contrast, responsibility ratings were only slightly affected by frame. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion

Several independent lines of research bear on the question of why individuals avoid decisions by postponing them, failing to act, or accepting the status quo. This review relates findings across several different disciplines and uncovers 4 decision avoidance effects that offer insight into this common but troubling behavior: choice deferral, status quo bias, omission bias, and inaction inertia. These findings are related by common antecedents and consequences in a rational-emotional model of the factors that predispose humans to do nothing. Prominent components of the model include cost-benefit calculations, anticipated regret, and selection difficulty. Other factors affecting decision avoidance through these key components, such as anticipatory negative emotions, decision strategies, counterfactual thinking, and preference uncertainty, are also discussed.     

The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice

Recent research has examined consumer decision making when the option of not choosing any of the alternatives is also provided. The findings from this research suggest that the decision to defer choice is sensitive to the uncertainty of choosing the most preferred option from the set of alternatives provided. Building on this research, the author tests whether the decision to defer choice is also influenced by task variables that influence decision uncertainty. In the first experiment, this proposition is tested for choice problems in which information on three relatively equally attractive alternatives is presented either sequentially or simultaneously. As predicted, the preference for the defer-choice option was greater when the three alternatives were presented simultaneously. A second study forced subjects into using one of four decision strategies in order to choose between two non-dominated alternatives. The preference for the no-choice option was found to be higher when the rule required explicit attribute tradeoffs and lower when it simplified choice. These results suggest that choice uncertainty is influenced by the decision strategy used to determine the preference among alternatives. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the results for marketers' communication strategies.