Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion

Although prior research has shown that some people prefer a risky to an ambiguous option, this study further proposes that people's regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) might influence their ambiguity aversion. Three experiments have tested whether people with promotion focus showed less ambiguity aversion than those with prevention focus: The first experiment revealed that, compared with chronically promotion‐focused individuals, prevention‐focused subjects preferred a risky to an ambiguous option. In the second experiment, priming of the subjects' goal orientations led to similar results. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants showed less ambiguity aversion for the expected performance of an investment product representative of promotion (e.g., a stock fund) rather than one representative of prevention (e.g., a bond fund). In other words, people showed less preference for a bond fund when the probability distribution of its expected performance was unknown than when it was known, whereas they showed less preference difference between known and unknown probability distributions for the expected performance of a stock fund. This study has integrated research pertaining to regulatory focus and ambiguity aversion, and the results have confirmed that the impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion is robust across different methods and decision tasks. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An interactionist perspective on the relation between 2D:4D and behavior: An overview of (moderated) relationships between 2D:4D and economic decision making

The present paper gives an overview of recent research on the association between 2D:4D and different types of economic behavior. Particular attention is given to the importance of context dependence of relationships between 2D:4D and economic as well as other, social, behavior. Patterns of results are discussed from the perspective that 2D:4D might serve as a biological marker of dispositional dominance. This overview hopes to stimulate research from an interactionist perspective which focuses at relationships between 2D:4D and behavior that only appear when specific situational pressures interact with individual differences in 2D:4D.     

受助者结果类型对亲社会表现的影响:成人与儿童的对比研究

亲社会表现是指人们在社会交往中表现出来的谦让、帮助、合作、分享等行为,其影响机制受到广泛关注。本文通过两个研究（分别以大学生和二、四、六年级小学生为研究对象）探讨了受助者结果类型（受助者获得积极结果vs.受助者避免消极结果）对亲社会表现的影响。结果显示：（1）受助者避免消极结果条件比受助者获得积极结果条件诱发成人更高的亲社会意愿和行为;（2）六年级儿童帮助他人避免消极结果的亲社会意愿更强、情绪更积极;（3）相对于帮助他人避免消极结果,二年级儿童更倾向于帮助他人获得积极结果。这些结果说明受助者结果类型影响个体的亲社会表现（包括亲社会行为、亲社会意愿、亲社会情绪）,并且这种影响因成人和儿童有所不同：成人和年长儿童表现出亲社会损失规避现象,年幼儿童则表现出相反效应。     

源于“反常”终于“常理”的禀赋效应

如果忽略收入影响和交易成本, 愿意为一样物品支付的价格应等于愿意出售的价格。而塞勒教授却发现, 现实生活中有一些“反常”现象, 个体会对自己所拥有的物品赋予更高的价值, 造成“愿意支付价格”和“愿意出售价格”的不一致。塞勒利用预期理论中的损失厌恶对这些反常现象进行解释, 并将该现象称为禀赋效应(endowment effect)。此后, 众多研究者从不同角度对该效应进行了探索和论证。文章详细梳理了禀赋效应的多种解释机制, 包括损失厌恶、心理所有权理论、偏差的认知过程以及进化的观点等, 论证了禀赋效应符合“常理”的原因, 同时也探讨了禀赋效应在商业销售策略和政府拆迁政策等方面的应用前景。     

Guilt in bereavement: Its relationship with complicated grief and depression

This study investigated the relationship between guilt and well‐being of bereaved persons, and explored potential differences in the associations between guilt‐complicated grief (CG) and guilt‐depression. In total, 1358 Chinese bereaved adults were recruited to fill out questionnaires. Participants (N = 194) who had been bereaved within 2 years of the first survey, filled out the same questionnaires 1 year later. Higher guilt was associated with higher degrees of both CG and depression. The level of guilt predicted CG and depression symptoms 1 year later. Bereavement‐related guilt has a closer association with CG than depression. Responsibility guilt, indebtedness guilt and degree of guilt feeling are more prominent aspects of guilt in CG than in depression. These findings demonstrate the significant role of guilt (perhaps a core symptom) in mental health of the bereaved, having implications for identifying persons with grief complications and depression.     

《孔子诗论》与春秋时期诗学观念之比较

把《孔子诗论》同《左传》、《国语》所反映的诗学观念相比较,二者有三个相同之处:对诗的本质的认识和对风、雅、颂的认识是一致的;都采用“断章取义”的解诗方法;乃至对一些具体作品的解释也是一致的。这表明春秋时期的解《诗》用《诗》之风,不但是《诗论》产生的土壤,也给其形成提供了充足的条件。同时二者又有三个不同之处,即点滴论述和自成体系的不同;断章取义和评论篇旨的不同;大、小雅并重和国风、小雅并重的不同。这表明《诗论》是在更高的水平上评论作品,是对春秋时期诗学思想的重大超越。     

Cholinergic dependence of taste memory formation: evidence of two distinct processes

Learning the aversive or positive consequences associated with novel taste solutions has a strong significance for an animal's survival. A lack of recognition of a taste's consequences could prevent ingestion of potential edibles or encounter death. We used conditioned taste aversion (CTA) and attenuation of neophobia (AN) to study aversive and safe taste memory formation. To determine if muscarinic receptors in the insular cortex participate differentially in both tasks, we infused the muscarinic antagonists scopolamine at distinct times before or after the presentation of a strong concentration of saccharin, followed by either an i.p. injection of a malaise-inducing agent or no injection. Our results showed that blockade of muscarinic receptors before taste presentation disrupts both learning tasks. However, the same treatment after the taste prevents AN but not CTA. These results clearly demonstrate that cortical cholinergic activity participates in the acquisition of both safe and aversive memory formation, and that cortical muscarinic receptors seem to be necessary for safe but not for aversive taste memory consolidation. These results suggest that the taste memory trace is processed in the insular cortex simultaneously by at least two independent mechanisms, and that their interaction would determine the degree of aversion or preference learned to a novel taste.     

The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain?

Loss aversion, the principle that losses loom larger than gains, is among the most widely accepted ideas in the social sciences. The first part of this article introduces and discusses the construct of loss aversion. The second part of this article reviews evidence in support of loss aversion. The upshot of this review is that current evidence does not support that losses, on balance, tend to be any more impactful than gains. The third part of this article aims to address the question of why acceptance of loss aversion as a general principle remains pervasive and persistent among social scientists, including consumer psychologists, despite evidence to the contrary. This analysis aims to connect the persistence of a belief in loss aversion to more general ideas about belief acceptance and persistence in science. The final part of the article discusses how a more contextualized perspective of the relative impact of losses versus gains can open new areas of inquiry that are squarely in the domain of consumer psychology.     

Bringing (Contingent) Loss Aversion Down to Earth — A Comment on Gal & Rucker's Rejection of “Losses Loom Larger Than Gains”

Although we disagree with some of Gal and Rucker's (2018 – this issue) specific evidence and with their overstated conclusion regarding loss aversion, their overarching message makes a worthwhile contribution. In particular, loss aversion is less robust and universal than has been assumed while its most prominent empirical support — the endowment effect and the status quo bias — is susceptible to multiple alternative explanations. Instead of accepting loss aversion as true unless proven otherwise, we should treat it like other decision properties and psychological accounts that are contingent on various moderators and call for an analysis of psychological mechanisms. In this commentary, we suggest that gatekeepers, such as reviewers, tend to favor loss aversion and other widely accepted tendencies, while demanding a much higher support‐threshold for alternative or newer accounts. Although building on prior theories and concepts is of course important, the bias in favor of incumbent assumptions can impede scientific progress, bar new ideas from the literature, and reinforce well‐established but contingent notions that may apply under some conditions but not others.