Do Politicians Take Risks Like the Rest of Us? An Experimental Test of Prospect Theory Under MPs

Political psychologists have been quick to use prospect theory in their work, realizing its potential for explaining decisions under risk. Applying prospect theory to political decision‐making is not without problems, though, and here we address two of these: (1) Does prospect theory actually apply to political decision‐makers, or are politicians unlike the rest of us? (2) Which dimension do politicians use as their reference point when there are multiple dimensions (e.g., votes and policy)? We address both problems in an experiment with a unique sample of Dutch members of parliament as participants. We use well‐known (incentivized) decision situations and newly developed hypothetical political decision‐making scenarios. Our results indicate that politicians’ deviate from expected utility theory in the direction predicted by prospect theory but that these deviations are somewhat smaller than those of other people. Votes appear to be a more important determinant of politicians’ reference point than is policy.     

Knowledge central: A central role for knowledge attributions in social evaluations

Five experiments (N?=?1710) demonstrate the central role of knowledge attributions in social evaluations. In Experiments 1–3, we manipulated whether an agent believes, is certain of, or knows a true proposition and asked people to rate whether the agent should perform a variety of actions. We found that knowledge, more so than belief or certainty, leads people to judge that the agent should act. In Experiments 4–5, we investigated whether attributions of knowledge or certainty can explain an important finding on how people act based on statistical evidence, known as “the Wells effect”. We found that knowledge attributions, but not certainty attributions, mediate this effect on decision making.     

A Decision‐Making Model for Addressing Problematic Behaviors in Counseling Students

Gatekeeping is the subject of continued discourse in the counseling profession. With revisions to the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014 ), recent litigation (Keeton v. Anderson‐Wiley, 2010 ; Ward v. Wilbanks, 2009 ), and focused attention on value conflicts in counseling (Francis & Dugger, 2014 ), counselor educators' role as gatekeepers is expanding. In addition to this expanding role, counselor educators are responsible for being culturally and developmentally sensitive in interpreting, applying, and enforcing the codes and standards with counseling students. This article proposes a decision‐making model that integrates feminist, multicultural, systems theory, and social‐constructivist ethical decision‐making principles to address problematic behaviors in counseling students.     

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。     

案件无关情绪和案件相关情绪对法官量刑决策影响的实验研究

本研究通过两个模拟量刑实验,具体考察了案件无关情绪和案件相关情绪对法官量刑决策的影响。结果发现案件无关情绪显著影响法官量刑。法官在悲伤情绪下所判刑期短于中性情绪,愉悦和愤怒情绪与中性情绪下刑期无显著差异。案件相关情绪显著影响法官量刑,法官同情情绪下刑期更短,厌恶和愤怒情绪下刑期更长。性别对法官量刑无显著影响,从业时间对法官量刑无显著影响。性别和从业时间对案件无关情绪和相关情绪诱发均无显著影响。     

Simulation of Preference Information in an Interactive Reference Point‐Based Method for the Bi‐Objective Inventory Routing Problem

In the research area of multiple criteria decision making, very few publications exist that explicitly design the simulation of a decision maker (DM) in an interactive approach. For this reason, we outline some methods widely used in the literature to identify common assumptions of simulating the DM's responses and the required input preference information. Our paper aims at covering the identified gap by introducing experimental concepts. Such concepts are used for theoretical analyses of a combined search‐and‐decision‐making procedure. Simulating the DM is a fruitful idea because the algorithm can be tested without integrating a human decision maker. Finally, we conduct experiments based on the proposed settings for a multiobjective inventory routing problem, which is a relevant and challenging logistic problem. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

判断与决策研究纵观:基于模糊痕迹理论的视角(英文)

模糊痕迹理论是用于解释记忆、判断与决策的综合性理论,该理论的提出和发展主要基于对信息存储、表征、提取和加工过程的研究。本文首先介绍了模糊痕迹理论的基本原则,在此基础上重点讨论了其要义(gist)如何发挥核心作用,使得模糊痕迹理论有别于其他传统的决策模型。该理论将高级直觉与原始冲动性进行了区分,并且预测决策误差来源于判断与决策的各种不同成分,如背景知识、信息表征、提取和加工过程等。模糊痕迹理论不仅可以解释诸如框架效应、合取谬误等传统决策与判断文献中常讨论的误差现象,同时基于该理论的研究还得到了一些与传统决策理论相悖的新发现。此外,对脑与行为如何发育性变化的研究为我们了解成人的认知过程提供了至关重要的新视角,这些对脑与行为的发育性研究和对特殊人群的研究结果也都支持了模糊痕迹理论对要义加工依赖的预测。     

Who’s bringing the donuts: The role of affective patterns in group decision making

Two studies examined how intragroup affective patterns influence groups’ pervasive tendency to ignore the unique expertise of their members. Using a hidden profile task, Study 1 provided evidence that groups with at least one member experiencing positive affect shared more unique information than groups composed entirely of members experiencing neutral affect. This occurred because group members experiencing positive affect were more likely to initiate unique information sharing, as well as information seeking. Study 2 built upon this base by showing that confidence mediates the relationship between positive affect and the initiation of unique information sharing. Additionally, Study 2 investigated the role of negative affect in group decision making and how negative and positive affect concurrently influence decision making when groups are composed of members experiencing each. The results are discussed in terms of the role affect plays in influencing group behavior and the resultant importance of investigating specific affective patterns.     

中国情境下团队伦理决策的过程机制及影响因素

尽管绝大多数商业伦理决策都是由团队而非个人所做出的,但目前对团队伦理决策的研究还很少,尤其缺乏基于理论的深入研究。在前人研究的基础上,借鉴个体伦理决策和团队决策方面的研究成果,结合中国文化强调反省、中庸、威权领导等特点,我们对团队伦理决策的过程机制及影响因素的作用模式展开理论驱动的深入研究。具体来讲,将综合利用多种方法来进行两个方面的4项子研究。在团队伦理决策的过程机制方面,拟开展团队伦理决策的过程机制模型构建研究,然后聚焦于团队伦理决策和个体伦理决策的核心区别,展开基于社会决策图式理论的团队伦理决策观点整合机制研究;在团队伦理决策的影响因素作用模式方面,拟从成员和领导两个方面来进行:基于信息加工和团队冲突的成员多样性对团队伦理决策的影响机制研究,基于信息取样模型的领导特征对团队伦理决策的影响机制研究。