Positive and Negative Affect in Loss Aversion: Additive or Subtractive Logic?

Previous studies explain loss aversion as the result of a situation in which the expected negative emotions derived from a potential loss exceed the expected positive emotions derived from a potential gain (subtractive logic). We questioned this view and proposed additive logic, in which a linear combination between negative and positive emotions can be used as summed anticipatory affect intensity (SAAI) to explain loss aversion. By disproving two implicit hypotheses of subtractive logic, Study 1 showed that the additive logic of expected positive and negative affect was more effective than the subtractive logic in predicting loss aversion. Study 2 used real monetary gains and losses to verify the conclusion in Study 1. Using state‐trait theory to comprehensively consider the state and trait aspects of affect intensity, we further deduced that the immediate expected affect intensity might originate from the difference of an individual trait in affect intensity. Study 3 proved this hypothesis and showed that SAAI plays an intermediary role between affect intensity and loss aversion. Furthermore, Study 4 used real gamblers in casinos in Macau as its sample and obtained the same conclusion regarding loss aversion in real life as was found in the laboratory. Finally, we explained the effect of SAAI on loss aversion and indicated the contribution and significance of this study. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Eyes on the Prize? Evidence of Diminishing Attention to Experienced and Foregone Outcomes in Repeated Experiential Choice

Recently, there has been increased interest in decisions‐from‐experience (where decision makers learn from observing the outcomes of previous choices), which provide valuable insights into the learning and preference construction processes underlying many daily decisions. Several process models have been developed to capture these processes, and while such models often fit the data well, many assume that the decision maker is a vigilant observer, processing each outcome. In two studies, we provide a critical test of this assumption using eye tracking to record directed visual attention when participants choose repeatedly among two options, each time being shown the outcome for their chosen option and for the foregone option. Consistently, we find that the vigilance assumption is not supported, with decision makers often not attending to outcome information. Moreover, (in)attention to outcomes is predictable, with vigilance decreasing as more choices are made, and being greater for obtained than for foregone outcomes, and when options deliver only gains as opposed to losses or a mixture of gains and losses. Furthermore, we find that this variation in attentional allocation plays a central role in the apparent indecisiveness (inconsistency) in choice, with increased attention to foregone outcomes predicting switches to that option on the next choice. Together, these findings highlight the value of eye tracking in investigations of decisions‐from‐experience, providing novel insight into the cognitive processes underlying them. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

公平加工的情境依赖性:来自行为的证据

采用最后通牒博弈范式,考察利益水平及社会距离对个体公平加工的影响,探讨公平加工的情境依赖性。实验结果表明:(1)对分配提议的加工受到利益水平的调节,不利不公平条件下被试更加注重公平。(2)提议的不同水平影响被试的拒绝行为,提议越不公平,拒绝率越高。(3)虽然社会距离的主效应不显著,但在实际情境中,较近的社会距离下人们对公平的要求更严格,证实公平加工具有情境依赖性。     

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。     

社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制

以往关于为自己和代他人决策的冒险行为研究结果不一致, 这可能是因为以往的研究没有考虑决策情境和决策者人际特质等因素对于决策行为的影响。社会价值取向(social value orientation, SVO)是一种典型的人际特质, 是个体在对自我和他人资源分配时所表现出的社会偏好, 通常分为亲社会者和亲自我者。为探究SVO对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制, 采用为自己和陌生人分别完成多轮混合赌博游戏的任务。结果发现亲自我比亲社会者代他人决策更冒险。用模型量化的损失厌恶和对潜在损失的敏感度部分中介了自我-他人风险决策差异, 但只有对他人潜在损失的敏感度部分中介自我-他人决策的SVO效应。说明SVO会影响自我-他人风险决策, 且该效应可以通过对他人利益的关心程度起作用, 所以在自我-他人风险决策的研究中应将SVO这一决策者的人际特质因素考虑在内。     

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

Previous studies show that decision makers (DMs) lie more to avoid a loss than achieve a gain. Two compelling mechanisms might explain this observation. One assumes that lying is a risky activity and relates to the shape of the monetary value function described by prospect theory, which assumes (a) increased risk taking for loss frames and (b) an asymmetry between the perceived values of losses and gains. The other relates to the importance of self-esteem functions as expressed in self-concept maintenance models, self-esteem issues being weighed against monetary issues. This alternative explanation assumes that a loss frame serves as a factor lowering moral considerations. We report an experimental study presenting sets of lotteries to DMs, once in a moral context and once in a traditional probabilistic context. The results show that DMs take less risk when lotteries are presented in a moral context. It is also shown that DMs take more risk for losses than gains, this holding for both the moral and probabilistic contexts. This latter result suggests that loss/gain asymmetry can be completely explained by prospect theory factors, and framing makes no difference to the valuing of moral considerations.     

行为决策中模糊规避研究的回顾与展望

模糊规避是指在相同奖赏的情况下,决策者会偏好有精确概率的事件而不是从主观上判断具有相同模糊概率的事件。自从Ellsberg提出模糊规避的概念以来,模糊规避已在行为决策研究的多个领域得到广泛验证。本文梳理了近五十年来关于模糊规避的研究文献,系统分析了模糊规避的研究范式、心理机制和影响因素,同时提出了未来的研究展望。     

模糊决策的情境依赖性

实验1采用艾尔斯伯格悖论的研究范式,探究被试对模糊的厌恶倾向以及在决策过程中所采用的决策策略。结果发现：被试对确定选项和模糊选项的选择存在差异;在肯定形式下倾向于确定选项,而在否定形式下则倾向于模糊选项,采用了利益最大化策略。实验2采用艾尔斯伯格悖论的变式,通过操纵概率和任务类型,发现：模糊决策具有情境依赖性,并非任何情况下个体都厌恶模糊。当风险选项不能满足自己的需要,即获胜机率比较小时,人们会偏向模糊选项。     

决策中的框架效应再探

框架效应是指对相同决策任务不同方式的描述会影响决策者对备择选项的认知．大量研究已证实了框架效应的存在。本研究采用经典的“海难”问题,进一步探讨了决策任务中的框架效应。结果发现,在生命问题和财产问题中均没有发现框架效应的存在。在面对生命问题时,总体上人们倾向于冒险;在面对财产问题时,总体上倾向于保守。另外在面对生命问题时,女生比男生更倾向于冒险。     

社会距离与分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响

选取60名8-10岁儿童,采用迫选式独裁者游戏,考察个体与博弈对象的社会距离以及分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响。结果发现：（1）在有利不公平条件下,与博弈对象社会距离越近,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（2）分配差距越大,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（3）社会距离和分配差距交互作用显著,在中等分配差距条件下,儿童对不公平分配提议拒绝率的社会距离效应最为明显。结果表明,社会距离和分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶有显著影响,在中度分配差距下社会距离具有更加明显的调节作用。