To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role

The status quo effect derived from loss aversion is common in decision making. However, we propose that advisors (vs. personal decision makers) are less susceptible to such an effect because they are less loss-averse. The difference in loss aversion between personal decision makers and advisors is reflected in both the query order and content. Compared to advisors, personal decision makers produce more queries favoring the status quo, at an earlier time, than those favoring the new option. As hypothesized, the status quo effect was observed among personal decision makers, but not among advisors (Studies 1 and 2). Query order and content were found to mediate the impact of decision maker’s role on the status quo effect (Study 2). When personal decision makers and advisors made queries in the same order (Study 3) or of the same content (Studies 4a and 4b), the difference between self–other decision making disappeared.     

风险投资中的短视效应及理论解释

“投资者难以长远地将多重投资看作整体,而更倾向于分割成单一决策进而表现出每次决策风险规避的现象”被称为风险投资中的短视效应.短视/远视风险投资常通过单一决策/重复决策范式予以研究.大多数的研究发现,在单一决策条件下,投资者接受投资的人数比例或者投资金额低于重复决策条件.短视效应的调节机制有反馈频率、投资灵活性、选择组块、风险状况等.研究者分别提出短视损失厌恶（myopic loss aversion,简称MLA）理论和短视预期理论（myopic prospect theory,MPT）对短视现象进行解释;但这些理论受到基于齐当别理论（equate-to-differentiate theory）研究的挑战.文章在总结短视效应已有相关研究的基础上指出今后有必要深入探索的方向.     

Taste Aversion Learning Based on Swimming and Lithium Chloride Injection in Rats: Implications From Cross-familiarization Tests and Stimulus Selectivity1

In rats, swimming causes avoidance of the taste solution consumed immediately before the swimming. Several lines of research have shown that this taste avoidance reflects Pavlovian conditioned aversion based on correlations between the taste and swimming-induced nausea. The present research compared swimming-based taste aversion learning (TAL) with conventional TAL based on nausea-inducing lithium chloride (LiCl). By exploiting cross-familiarization techniques, Experiments 1A and 1B suggested that different physiological states are induced by swimming and LiCl. This claim was supported by Experiment 2, which reports stimulus selectivity in saccharin and sucrose aversions based on swimming and LiCl.     

The BDNF Val66Met polymorphism impacts victim's moral emotions following interpersonal transgression

Immoral behaviors make individuals abominate and punish transgressors. Inspired by the associations between the Val66Met polymorphism of brain‐derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) gene and emotional responses following negative events, we investigated whether this polymorphism was also associated moral emotions such as punishment and forgiveness following interpersonal transgression. To do so, we categorized 340 individuals according to the BDNF Val66Met and assessed moral emotions by using 12 hypothetic scenarios in different conditions of intention and interpersonal consequence. The results indicated that this polymorphism was significantly associated with moral aversion and punishment towards transgressors. Victims with the Val/Val genotype expressed less aversion and punishment than the Met carriers, regardless of intention and interpersonal consequence. Moreover, this polymorphism was associated with forgiveness. Victims with the Val/Val genotype expressed more forgiveness than the Met carriers. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of the BDNF Val66Met to moral emotions.     

得失不对称：跨期选择中自我-他人决策差异

采用跨期选择任务范式,考察得失情境下自我–他人决策差异。结果发现：（1）为自己决策比为他人决策更偏好于选择即刻选项;（2）损失情境比获益情境下更偏好于选择即刻选项;（3）获益情境下为自己决策与为他人决策在选择即刻选项上不存在显著差异,而损失情境下为自己决策比为他人决策更偏好于选择即刻选项,表明得失情境下自我–他人决策差异存在不对称性。     

Policy bundling to overcome loss aversion: A method for improving legislative outcomes

Policies that would create net benefits for society that contain salient costs frequently lack enough support for enactment because losses loom larger than gains. To address this consequence of loss aversion, we propose a policy-bundling technique in which related bills involving both losses and gains are combined to offset separate bills’ costs while preserving their net benefits. We argue this method can transform unpopular individual pieces of legislation, which would lack the support for implementation, into more popular policies. Study 1 confirms that bundling increases support for bills with costs and benefits and that bundled legislation is valued more than the sum of its parts. Study 2 shows this finding stems from a diminished focus on losses and heightened focus on gains. Study 3 extends our findings to policies involving costs and benefits of the same type (e.g., lives) generated by different sources (e.g., food vs. fire safety).     

Self–other decision making and loss aversion

In eight studies, we tested the prediction that making choices for others involves less loss aversion than making choices for the self. We found that loss aversion is significantly lessened among people choosing for others in scenarios describing riskless choice (Study 1), gambling (Studies 2 and 3), and social aspects of life, such as likeably and status (Studies 4a–e). Moreover, we found this pattern in relatively realistic conditions where people are rewarded for making desirable (i.e., profitable) choices for others (Study 2), when the other for whom a choice is made is physically present (Study 3), and when real money is at stake (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we found loss aversion is moderated when factors associated with self–other differences in decision making are taken into account, such as decision makers’ construal level (Study 4a), regulatory focus (Study 4b), degree of information seeking (Study 4c), omission bias (Study 4d), and power (Study 4e).     

The Seller's Sense: Buying–Selling Perspective Affects the Sensitivity to Expected Value Differences

Previous work comparing pricing decisions by buyers and sellers has primarily focused on the endowment effect, the phenomenon that selling prices exceed buying prices. Here, we examine whether pricing decisions by buyers and sellers also vary in sensitivity to differences between objects' expected values (EVs). Both a loss‐aversion account (which posits that losses are weighted more heavily than gains) and a loss‐attention account (which posits increased attention to a task when it involves possible losses) predict that pricing decisions by sellers should exhibit higher sensitivity. The latter, however, additionally predicts that this pattern should only emerge under certain conditions. In studies 1 and 2, we reanalyzed two published datasets in which participants priced monetary lotteries as sellers or buyers. It emerged that sellers showed greater EV sensitivity (defined as the rank correlation between the set price for each lottery and its EV) except in a condition with an extended deliberation time of 15 seconds. In study 3, the buyer–seller difference in EV sensitivity was replicated even when the pricing task was presented repeatedly, while in study 4, it was eliminated when buying and selling trials were randomly mixed. The reduction of the “seller's sense” in long deliberation and mixed trials settings supports an attentional resource‐based account of the differences between sellers and buyers in their EV sensitivity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

澳门人少涉赌是规避风险还是规避后悔？

是风险规避还是后悔规避左右人们的冒险行为？基于风险行为跨领域特殊性,本研究假设：决策者是规避风险还是规避后悔具有领域特异性。本研究选取有涉赌经验的澳门居民为样本,以其参与13种博彩的次数为指标考察其真实风险行为。结果验证了上述假设,风险规避说或后悔规避说都不能单独解释个体的风险倾向,个体是风险规避、后悔规避,或二者皆有,取决于其所处的具体风险情境类别。该发现有助于加深对风险行为特征的认识,亦可为预防及应对问题赌博提供启发和指导。     

"I had so much it didn't seem fair": Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity

Research using economic games has demonstrated that adults are willing to sacrifice rewards in order to prevent inequity both when they receive less than a social partner (disadvantageous inequity) and when they receive more (advantageous inequity). We investigated the development of both forms of inequity aversion in 4- to 8-year-olds using a novel economic game in which children could accept or reject unequal allocations of candy with an unfamiliar peer. The results showed that 4- to 7-year-olds rejected disadvantageous offers, but accepted advantageous offers. By contrast, 8-year-olds rejected both forms of inequity. These results suggest that two distinct mechanisms underlie the development of the two forms of inequity aversion.