一拍即合：选择闭合影响最优化型决策风格者选择超载的中介机制

本研究通过3个研究探讨最优化型决策风格者更易选择超载的内在机制、以及如何缓解最优化型决策风格者选择超载。结果发现：(1)相较于满意型决策风格者,最优化型决策风格者更易选择超载;(2)选择闭合低是导致最优化型决策风格者选择超载的心理机制;(3)躯体闭合动作能够有效启动选择闭合感知,缓解最优化型决策风格者选择超载的负面作用。本研究对选择超载和最优化研究具有一定理论贡献,同时为消费者和商家提供实践启示。     

The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?

Researchers have noted parallels between decisions under uncertainty and over time. Three experiments evaluated the theory that uncertainty and time affect choice via a common underlying dimension, such that delaying an outcome is equivalent to making it uncertain. To test this account we asked whether adding uncertainty to outcomes would eliminate the immediacy effect bias. We also asked whether adding time delay to outcomes would eliminate the certainty effect bias. The answer to both questions was yes, provided the prospects were presented singly rather than jointly. In single evaluation uncertainly eliminated the immediacy effect and delay eliminated one form of the certainty effect, while in joint evaluation, these effects did not occur. These findings suggest that at least in some contexts decision makers may equate risk and delay. Other explanations are possible, however, demonstrating that the interaction between risk and delay is complex and not easily understood.     

Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”

Regulatory fit is experienced when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation. Previous research on promotion and prevention orientations has found that regulatory fit increases people’s perception that a decision they made was “right,” which in turn transfers value to the decision outcome, including being willing to pay more for a product than those who chose the same product without regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., in press). We predicted that the effect of regulatory fit on monetary value could be generalized to locomotion and assessment orientations. Participants were willing to pay over 40% more for the same book-light when it was chosen with a strategy that fit their regulatory orientation (assessment/“full evaluation”; locomotion/“progressive elimination”) than when it was chosen with a non-fit strategy.     

Role stressors and counterproductive work behavior: The role of negative affect and proactive personality

Based on the stressor‐emotion model, we propose that negative affect mediates the relationship between three role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB), while proactive personality moderates the relationships between negative affect, role stressors, and CWB. We tested our hypotheses using data from 332 employees in Mainland China. We found that negative affect mediated the relationships between the three dimensions of role stressors and CWB. Role ambiguity was most strongly associated with CWB, followed by role conflict and then role overload. Proactive personality moderated the role ambiguity‐negative affect, role conflict‐negative affect, and negative affect‐CWB relationships, but not the relationship between role overload and negative affect.     

Neuroscience and the possibility of locally determined choices: Reply to Adina Roskies and Eddy Nahmias

In a previous paper, I argued that neuroscience and psychology could in principle undermine libertarian free will by providing support for a subset of what I called “statements of local determination.” I also argued that Libet-style experiments have not so far supported statements of that sort. In a commentary to the paper, Adina Roskies and Eddy Nahmias accept the claim about Libet-style experiments, but reject the claim about the possibilities of neuroscience. Here, I explain why I still disagree with their conclusion, despite being sympathetic to a lot of what they say in support of it.     

Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies,positive affect,and motor learning

ObjectivesAccording to the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016), autonomy support contributes to successful performance and learning in part by enhancing learners' expectancies. The present study was designed to test expectancy-related predictions. Specifically, we examined the effects of practice with autonomy support on learners’ self-efficacy, positive affect, and thoughts during practice.DesignExperimental study with two groups. Movement form was assessed in two different experimental phases, supplemented by questionnaire data.MethodTen-year old children were shown a sequence of 5 ballet positions they were asked to learn: Preparatory position, demi plié, tendu with arms and legs in second position, passé with arms in first position, and elevé with feet in first position. In the autonomy-support (AS) group, participants were able to choose video demonstrations throughout practice, while control (C) group participants were provided with demonstrations based on their yoked counterparts’ choices. One day after practice, participants performed in a retention test.ResultsThe AS group demonstrated greater improvements in movement form during practice and enhanced learning relative to the C group. Furthermore, AS participants had higher self-efficacy and greater positive affect than the C group. Also, AS participants reported having more positive thoughts during practice relative to C group participants, who reported more negative and self-related thoughts.ConclusionsThe present findings are in line with OPTIMAL theory predictions. They highlight the motivational underpinnings of the learning benefits that are seen when learners are given choices.     

External focus of attention and autonomy support have additive benefits for motor performance in children

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the combined effects of external focus instructions and autonomy support on motor performance of children. In addition, we sought to provide evidence for an increased focus on the task goal under the external focus condition by using an inattentional blindness manipulation.DesignWithin-participant design.MethodThirty-six children (mean age = 8.5 ± 1.3 years) were asked to perform a bowling task with their dominant hand. Each participant performed 8 trials under external focus (path of the ball), internal focus (hand), or control conditions. In each attentional focus condition, they performed half of the trials under a choice (autonomy support) condition, in which they were able to choose among 4 bowling balls, and a no-choice condition (white ball).ResultsThe external focus instruction resulted in greater bowling accuracy (i.e., more pins knocked down) than internal focus and no instructions (control). Furthermore, choice resulted in more effective performance than no choice. Thus, both factors had additive benefits for performance. There was some evidence for an increased task focus in the external condition.ConclusionsThe present results show that, within the same individuals, instructions to adopt an external focus and the provision of a small choice contributed independently to enhance motor performance in children.     

Creativity as a Matter of Choice: Prior Experience and Task Instruction as Boundary Conditions for the Positive Effect of Choice on Creativity

This study investigates the effects of prior experience, task instruction, and choice on creative performance. Although extant research suggests that giving people choice in how they approach a task could enhance creative performance, we propose that this view needs to be circumscribed. Specifically, we argue that when choice is administered during problem solving by varying the number of available resources, the high combinatorial flexibility conferred by a large choice set of resources can be overwhelming. Through two experiments, we found that only individuals with high prior experience in the task domain and given explicit instruction to be creative produced more creative outcomes when given more choice. When either of these two conditions is not met (i.e., low prior experience or given non‐creativity instruction), more choice did not lead to more creative performance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.