更优更耐心：质量结果对跨期选择的影响

跨期选择以往的研究集中于金钱数量结果。基于维度加工的模型,本文探究了在跨期选择中,人们面对质量差异的结果(如,今天的低配版手机还是六个月后的高配版手机)vs.相对应的金钱结果(如,今天的5000元还是六个月后的6000元)的选择偏好差异。3个实验结果表明：人们面对质量结果(相比于金钱结果)的跨期选择表现得更耐心,而这种现象是由于人们面对选择时在结果维度差异感知不同所致。与金钱结果跨期选择相同,质量结果跨期选择的心理加工过程同样遵循维度间差异比较。本研究为基于维度的跨期选择模型提供了新的证据。     

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.     

Weighing Outcomes by Time or Against Time? Evaluation Rules in Intertemporal Choice

Models of intertemporal choice draw on three evaluation rules, which we compare in the restricted domain of choices between smaller sooner and larger later monetary outcomes. The hyperbolic discounting model proposes an alternative‐based rule, in which options are evaluated separately. The interval discounting model proposes a hybrid rule, in which the outcomes are evaluated separately, but the delays to those outcomes are evaluated in comparison with one another. The tradeoff model proposes an attribute‐based rule, in which both outcomes and delays are evaluated in comparison with one another: People consider both the intervals between the outcomes and the compensations received or paid over those intervals. We compare highly general parametric functional forms of these models by means of a Bayesian analysis, a method of analysis not previously used in intertemporal choice. We find that the hyperbolic discounting model is outperformed by the interval discounting model, which, in turn, is outperformed by the tradeoff model. Our cognitive modeling is among the first to offer quantitative evidence against the conventional view that people make intertemporal choices by discounting the value of future outcomes, and in favor of the view that they directly compare options along the time and outcome attributes.     

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。     

Neural correlates of intertemporal choice in aggressive behavior

People often have to make decisions between immediate rewards and more long-term goals. Such intertemporal judgments are often investigated in the context of monetary choice or drug use, yet not in regard to aggressive behavior. We combined a novel intertemporal aggression paradigm with functional neuroimaging to examine the role of temporal delay in aggressive behavior and the neural correlates thereof. Sixty-one participants (aged 18–22 years; 37 females) exhibited substantial variability in the extent to which they selected immediate acts of lesser aggression versus delayed acts of greater aggression against a same-sex opponent. Choosing delayed-yet-more-severe aggression was increased by provocation and associated with greater self-control. Preferences for delayed aggression were associated with greater activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) during such choices, and reduced functional connectivity between the VMPFC and brain regions implicated in motor impulsivity. Preferences for immediate aggression were associated with reduced functional connectivity between the VMPFC and the frontoparietal control network. Dispositionally aggressive participants exhibited reduced VMPFC activity, which partially explained and suppressed their preferences for delayed aggression. Blunted VMPFC activity may thus be a neural mechanism that promotes reactive aggression towards provocateurs among dispositionally aggressive individuals. These findings demonstrate the utility of an intertemporal framework for investigating aggression and provide further evidence for the similar underlying neurobiology between aggression and other rewarding behaviors.     

Good or Bad,We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice

Intertemporal tradeoffs are ubiquitous in decision making, yet preferences for current versus future losses are rarely explored in empirical research. Whereas rational‐economic theory posits that neither outcome sign (gains vs. losses) nor outcome magnitude (small vs. large) should affect delay discount rates, both do, and moreover, they interact: in three studies, we show that whereas large gains are discounted less than small gains, large losses are discounted more than small losses. This interaction can be understood through a reconceptualization of fixed‐cost present bias, which has traditionally described a psychological preference for immediate rewards. First, our results establish present bias for losses—a psychological preference to have losses over with now. Present bias thus predicts increased discounting of future gains but decreased (or even negative) discounting of future losses. Second, because present bias preferences do not scale with the magnitude of possible gains or losses, they play a larger role, relative to other motivations for discounting, for small magnitude intertemporal decisions than for large magnitude intertemporal decisions. Present bias thus predicts less discounting of large gains than small gains but more discounting of large losses than small losses. The present research is the first to demonstrate that the effect of outcome magnitude on discount rates may be opposite for gains and losses and also the first to offer a theory (an extension of present bias) and process data to explain this interaction. The results suggest that policy efforts to encourage future‐oriented choices should frame outcomes as large gains or small losses. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

Prior research has provided substantial insight into individuals’ intertemporal preferences (i.e., preferences about delayed rewards). In the present study, we instead investigated the preferences of small groups of individuals asked to express collective intertemporal decisions. The paradigm consisted of three phases. During the precollaboration and postcollaboration phases, participants completed an intertemporal decision task individually. During the collaboration phase, participants completed a similar task in small groups, reaching mutually-agreed-upon decisions. The results suggest that group preferences were systematically related to the mean of the group members’ precollaboration preferences. In addition, collaborative decision making altered the group members’ intertemporal preferences. Specifically, individuals’ postcollaboration preferences converged toward the preferences of their respective groups. Furthermore, we found that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences were independently related to both their precollaboration preferences and the preferences of the other group members, suggesting that individuals’ postcollaboration preferences represented a revision of their precollaboration preferences based on the preferences observed in other group members. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that similar patterns of results were found whether participants were making matching judgments or binary choices.     

适应性时间管理：死亡意识对时间知觉和跨期决策的影响

死亡意识是个体对自身死亡必然性的认识; 基于进化适应性的考量, 作者认为具有前瞻性的死亡意识作为人类特有的认知能力和个体生命史的终极坐标, 不仅可能引起恐惧感和防御反应, 更重要的是可以帮助人们做出适应性的时间管理。据此推论, 死亡意识的启动会加强人们对时间有限性的关注, 体验出更强的时间流逝感, 影响人们对时间的评估, 以及人们对不同时间点的成本与收益进行权衡而做出的跨期决策。本研究采用死亡凸显范式启动死亡意识, 通过两个实验探讨了死亡意识、时间知觉和跨期决策三者之间的关系。结果发现, 死亡意识启动使被试低估时间距离, 并表现出较低的跨期决策延迟折扣率, 从而在较小的即时获益与更大的延迟的获益之间更为偏好未来导向的选项。进一步的分析显示, 时间知觉在死亡意识和跨期决策延迟折扣率之间起到部分中介变量的作用。以上的研究结果初步揭示了死亡意识在时间管理上的适应性价值。     

Consumer decisions in relationships

Most research on consumer choice assumes that decisions are usually made by individuals, and that these decisions are based on an individual's personal attitudes, beliefs, and preferences. Yet, much consumer behavior—from joint decisions to individual choices—is directly or indirectly shaped by people with whom we have some relationship. In this target article, we examine how each member in a relationship can affect how consumer decisions are made. After reviewing foundational work in the area, we introduce a powerful and statistically sophisticated methodology to study decisions within relationships—a dyadic framework of decision-making. We then discuss how the study of consumer decisions in relationships can be informed by different theories in the relationships field, including attachment, interdependence, social power, communal/exchange orientations, relationship norms, and evolutionary principles. By building on the seminal foundations of prior joint-decision making research with theories and methods from contemporary relationship science, we hope to facilitate the integration of the consumer and relationships literature to better understand and generate novel hypotheses about consumer decisions in relationships.     

Market mindset impacts moral decisions: The exposure to market relationships makes moral choices more utilitarian by means of proportional thinking

We show that exposure to market relationships increases people’s tendency to make utilitarian moral choices by means of proportional thinking—the definitional feature of the market mindset. In Experiment 1, participants primed with market relationships made more utilitarian choices in both the trolley and the footbridge dilemmas. In Experiment 2, priming market mindset led to more utilitarian moral choices and to greater focus on the proportion of survivors to victims. Experiment 3 showed that the effect of market mindset on utilitarian choices held only when the numbers of potential deaths and saved lives were clearly specified. A preregistered Experiment 4 demonstrated that the motivation to use proportional thinking mediates the relationship between market mindset and making utilitarian choices. Experiment 5, also preregistered, showed that the main effect we demonstrated is not due to suppressed emotions and that proportional thinking increases utilitarian choices as part of a broader orientation on rationality.     

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.     

跨期决策中的维度差异偏好：眼动证据

在跨期决策研究领域,虽然基于维度的跨期模型得到了一些源自结果检验和过程检验的证据支持,但此类模型所假设的维度间差异比较的心理过程尚缺乏直接的过程证据。本研究通过两个眼动实验,系统考察了相关眼动指标对维度差异偏好的预测效应。结果发现,根据基于维度的权衡模型可有效拟合出个体在跨期决策中的维度差异偏好,并且反应时、眼跳注视熵和静态注视熵等指标均与维度差异偏好负相关,而基于维度的注意分配与维度差异判断正相关。这些研究发现支持了本研究所提出的跨期眼动模型的相关假设,证实了维度差异偏好与跨期决策的认知加工过程之间的联系,为基于维度的跨期模型提供了更直接的过程证据,并为今后跨期决策的眼动模型发展指明了新方向。     

Time preferences for the very long term

Many important decisions concern outcomes delayed by decades or centuries. Whereas some economists have argued that inter-generational discount rates should be lower than intra-generational rates, three experiments found that inter- and intra-generational discount rates were quite similar. Experiment 1 found that discount rates for long delays (30-900 years) were lower than those for shorter delays (1-30 years) but that, holding delay constant, discount rates for outcomes occurring to future generations were similar to those for outcomes occurring to the present generation. Experiment 2 compared inter-generational discount rates for three different types of outcomes and found similar discount rates for saving lives, improving health, and financial benefits. Experiment 3 found similar inter-generational discounting of life-saving programs that benefit people close to or distant from the decision maker. These studies indicate that the discount rate applied to outcomes occurring to future generations depends on the length of the time delay but not on other factors.     

时间感知差异对跨期选择倾向的影响作用

本研究从人格特质差异角度出发, 采用简单跨期选择任务考察了由时距复制任务筛选的两类时距估计倾向不同的群体(时间高估者和时间低估者)在跨期选择中行为倾向的差异, 旨在探讨时间感知在跨期决策中的影响作用。结果发现：(1)无论任务难易, 与时间低估者相比, 时间高估者在跨期选择时更倾向于选择即时兑现的较小奖赏。(2)时间高估者和低估者的跨期选择反应时没有明显的差异, 但二者的反应时受任务难度的影响程度明显不同, 时间高估者的跨期选择反应时不受任务难度的影响, 而时间低估者在任务困难时的反应时比任务容易时明显增长。这些结果表明, 在跨期选择过程中, 时间感知倾向差异明显地影响了个体的选择倾向。时间高估倾向个体对时距的高估可能会导致其在跨期选择权衡中对收益成本的高估, 进而做出冲动的选择行为。     

Better to Decide Together: Shared Consumer Decision Making,Perceived Power,and Relationship Satisfaction

Shared consumer decisions, particularly those made with a relationship partner, can be very different from decisions that are made alone. Across multiple studies, we investigate how shared consumer decision making affects perceptions of power and relationship satisfaction. We integrate two streams of research to create a novel theory about consumer decision making and perceived power. Specifically, we suggest that shared consumer decision making combines two necessary components of power—an individual's influence over and a partner's engagement in the decision—and that these combined components drive power perceptions. In other words, individuals who relinquish some control and make a decision with their partner, ironically, perceive having greater power than if they had made the decision alone. We further find that shared decision making and greater perceived power lead to greater satisfaction with the relationship in which the decisions are made. By focusing on consumer decision making within relationships, the current research contributes to the literatures on decision making, social influences in consumer behavior, close relationships, consumer well-being, and power.     

跨期选择单维占优模型的过程检验

跨期选择需要决策者在眼前与未来的损益之间做出权衡与取舍。主流跨期选择理论认为, 跨期选择是把未来价值折扣到现在, 根据折扣后的价值进行选择的过程; 而单维占优模型则认为决策者把“结果”维度上的差异和“延迟”维度上的差异进行比较(维度间差异比较), 然后根据差异更大的维度(即占优势的维度)进行决策。跨期选择众理论之争无果的原因之一或是研究者未能找到揭示其心理过程的令人信服的证据。为此, 本研究采用过程检验而非结果拟合的方法, 首创了“直观模拟天平”任务, 对维度间差异比较的大小进行测量, 从而为验证单维占优模型提供了支持性的证据。实验1A证明了维度间差异大小中介了选择结果, 被试认为“结果”维度上的差异相对于“延迟”维度上的差异越大, 越倾向于选择延迟长、结果大的选项; 反之, 被试认为“延迟”维度上的差异相对于“结果”维度上的差异越大, 越倾向于选择延迟短、结果小的选项。实验1B证明了维度间差异比较是在选择时实时(而不是在选择后)进行的。实验1C通过调整实验程序消减了共同方法偏差对结果的影响。实验2进一步证明维度间差异比较可以解释众多的跨期选择异象。通过4个实验, 本研究揭示了维度间差异比较构成了跨期选择的重要(尽管可能不是唯一)决策过程, 为支持单维占优模型提供了重要的过程验证证据。     

“金钱-环境”复合收益的风险决策:价值取向的影响

现实中的环境决策,往往要在多个由"金钱-环境"复合而成的结果间做选择。人们如何对异质复合结果进行评估与选择,是决策研究面临的新课题。本研究着重考察个体金钱取向和环境取向的相对强度对复合收益风险决策的影响。结果表明,无论是采用自陈量表(实验1)或内隐联想测验(实验2)来测量价值取向,还是采用混词造句任务(实验3)来启动价值取向,均发现价值取向相对强度对复合风险决策有显著影响。(1)相比于金钱取向占优的个体,环境取向占优的个体在进行复合风险决策时更偏好环境风险较小的复合选项;(2)在复合选项等价匹配任务中,环境取向占优的个体会赋予复合选项中的环境收益以更高权重,倾向于用更多的金钱收益来弥补环境收益的风险折扣;(3)在复合收益风险概率匹配任务中,环境取向占优的个体更倾向于为获取倍增的环境收益而承担更大的复合收益风险。作为对复合结果风险决策的首次探索,本研究初步回答了不同价值取向的个体在金钱-环境复合风险决策中更倾向于规避什么风险、拿什么冒险以及为什么冒险等问题,为今后进一步开展复合决策研究打下了理论和方法基础。