Choice in the repeated-gambles experiment

Humans chose 10 times between two roulette wheels projected on a monitor. During the first trial, the left wheel provided a hypothetical $100 with p = .94, and the right wheel provided $250 with p = .39. A titration procedure adjusted the probability of a $250 win across trials to permit estimation of an indifference point between alternatives. In Experiment 1, intertrial-interval duration (25 vs. 90 s) and whether sessions began with an intertrial interval or a trial were varied in a 2 × 2 design in this risky-choice procedure. Risk aversion (preference for the $100 wheel) increased with intertrial interval but was unaffected by whether sessions began with a trial or an intertrial interval. In Experiment 2, all sessions began with a trial, and subjects were informed that the experiment ended after 10 trials. Intertrial-interval duration had no effect on choice. In Experiment 3, intertrial-interval duration and whether subjects were given $10 or $10,000 before beginning were varied among four groups in a 2 × 2 design. In all other ways, the procedure was unchanged from Experiment 2. Intertrial interval had no effect on choice, but the $10,000 groups showed less risk aversion than the $10 groups. These results can be explained more readily in terms of Kahneman and Tversky's (1984) notion of “framing of the prospect” than in terms of Rachlin, Logue, Gibbon, and Frankel's (1986) behavioral account of risky choice.     

Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries

The present study is a cross-cultural comparison of risk perception. A psychometric approach has been followed in order to examine quantitative risk judgments of different hazards and the ratings of these same hazards on various risk-characteristic scales. A list of hazards was used that is comparable with other samples (American, Hungarian, Norwegian), but a certain number of hazards of an entirely different kind were added (e.g. social tensions, shortages of consumer goods) because these are important today for Polish society. In spite of the different list of hazards, the basic factor structure of risk perception turned out to be essentially the same as the structure found in other studies. There was considerable agreement in risk perceptions in the Polish and American samples. We also discovered a number of idiosyncratic qualities of risk perception in Poland, generally indicating the importance of the availability heuristic.     

Rat defensive behavior: burying noxious food.

In Experiment 1, rats living in chambers containing bedding material were injected with a toxicosis-producing dose of lithium chloride shortly after their initial taste of sweetened condensed milk. They consumed no additional milk and used the bedding to bury the spout through which the milk had been delivered, although they did not bury a concurrently available water spout. In another control condition, rats did not bury a spout containing a novel solution (saccharin) not paired with toxicosis. In Experiment 2, rats did not bury a milk spout until milk consumption was followed by toxicosis. In Experiment 3, rats buried a spout containing Tabasco pepper sauce but not a concurrently available water spout. Thus, burying the food source appears to be an integral component of the rat's defensive reaction to noxious food.     

风险来源与决策:背信规避现象及人际联结需求的作用

经典的风险决策研究及相关理论模型关注人们如何对以不同概率出现的损益结果进行评价与选择,但很少区分和探究在相同概率和损益值下不同风险来源对决策的影响。事实上,决策情境中的风险既可能源自客观因素,也可能源自人为因素。与相同大小的客观风险相比,人们更规避人为风险,这种现象被称为"背信规避"。本研究采用信任博弈任务,通过最小可接受概率法和决策选择法两种方式探讨风险来源对决策冒险性的影响。结果发现:(1)中国被试存在"背信规避"现象,即对人为风险的规避程度高于客观风险;(2)当恐惧情绪被唤起时,被试对人为风险的规避程度降低,使得背信规避现象消失,甚至出现"反背信规避"倾向;(3)人际联结需求影响背信规避,人为风险下人际联结需求中介了恐惧情绪对决策冒险性的影响。上述结果有助于加深我们对风险来源影响决策的现象及其机制的理解。     

安于现状偏差的心理机制、影响因素及应用启示

安于现状偏差是指个体在决策时,倾向于不作为、维持当前或者以前的决策的一种现象。安于现状偏差包括内源的安于现状偏差与外源的安于现状偏差。目前研究者对这一现象的解释主要有两种:损失规避与后悔理论。安于现状偏差的影响因素主要包括备择项的数目、决策者的情绪以及认知与动机特征等。安于现状偏差有利于认识日常决策行为,而且在销售、管理与公共政策等实践领域有着重要的研究价值。未来的研究则需要从安于现状偏差与其他决策现象之间的关系,安于现状偏差的产生根源及其应用研究的拓展等方面来进一步探讨。     

Testing sociometer theory: Self-esteem and the importance of acceptance for social decision-making

The present study examined the sociometer’s role in guiding social behavior. The authors hypothesized that low self-esteem people (LSEs), but not high self-esteem people (HSEs), base their social decision-making on acceptance. Undergraduate participants were invited to join a social group and were led to believe that acceptance either was guaranteed, or was likely but not guaranteed. HSEs always were eager to join the group, whereas LSEs were keen to join the group only when acceptance was guaranteed. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicated that LSEs’ willingness to join the group was dependent on their anticipated social outcomes, which were contingent on acceptance from the group, whereas acceptance did not affect HSEs’ decision-making. These results support a sociometer account of social decision-making.