消费决策过程如何彰显社会地位?基于最优化决策策略的视角

彰显社会地位是消费者行为的一项基本动机。以往的消费心理学研究大量聚焦产品特征如何彰显社会地位(即令观察者产生高社会地位的推断), 却很少探讨消费决策过程这一购买决策中不可忽视的重要因素对社会地位推断有何影响。本研究试图构建一个基于最优化决策过程信息的社会地位推断模型, 系统探讨: (1)最优化决策过程能否及如何彰显消费者的社会地位; (2)彰显社会地位动机是否为消费者进行最优化决策的原因之一; (3)最优化决策过程如何通过社会地位推断影响观察者后续的消费行为。本研究将为社会地位推断研究提供新的视角, 扩展最优化决策研究的外延, 并从全新的角度揭示最优化决策的内涵。     

职业妥协：内涵、影响因素与实施效果

职业妥协是职业决策中的一个重要概念,关系着个体职业发展和社会就业的稳定。为了充分了解职业妥协和有效促进就业。首先,介绍了职业妥协的概念、测量;其次,总结了职业妥协的影响因素,并基于差异理论、目标设定理论、社会认知职业理论和人-环境匹配理论解释了职业妥协的实施效果,汇总了实施效果的边界条件;最后从职业妥协对职业行为的影响、个体职业生涯态度、家庭代际支持和上下级匹配与职业妥协的关系几个方面对未来研究进行了展望。     

压力下一搏：压力如何影响个体风险寻求

压力促使个体风险寻求已得到许多研究的验证和支持, 但对于该现象背后的根本机制缺乏深入探讨和整合。模型指出, 压力诱发认知资源损耗和心理需要失衡, 导致个体执行控制功能减弱, 奖赏寻求增加, 这两者引起对风险选项价值的高估、风险感知的降低和启发式决策策略的使用, 最终导致风险寻求。期望效用论、预期理论、双系统理论和风险敏感理论的视角能各有侧重地解析模型中的路径。最后, 基于模型梳理了边界条件, 并提出未来可关注压力下执行功能、认知和情绪的交互以及慢性压力的影响和调控。     

不确定性和预期有效性对运动方向感知决策的影响

环境中的运动刺激往往多变, 更好的方向感知需要同时依赖当前信息和先验信息。然而, 当前刺激的不确定性与先验线索的预期有效性在运动方向感知决策中如何整合尚不清楚。研究采用随机点运动范式, 要求被试判断散点群的整体运动方向, 方向一致的散点为相干点, 其比例越低, 不确定性越高。实验1比较了不同相干点比例下的感知准确度。根据实验1的结果, 选出20%和60%的相干点比例分别对应实验2中散点群的高、低不确定性水平。实验2比较了高、低不确定性和高、低预期有效性(线索正确预测目标的概率)下的感知准确度。结果发现, 随着不确定性的降低和预期有效性的增加, 感知准确度显著提高; 预期效应(高、低有效性下感知准确度的差异)随不确定性的提高而增加。结果表明, 先验信息与感觉信息能在运动方向感知决策中整合。研究为双重控制机制(DMC)理论下主动性与反应性控制协同工作的观点提供了实证支持, 并为交通事故的解释与预防提供了理论依据。     

共情关怀对公平决策的影响——来自ERP的证据

本研究运用事件相关电位技术(event-related potential, ERP)和最后通牒博弈范式(ultimatum game, UG)考察了共情关怀对公平决策的影响。实验采用2 (状态共情关怀: 有共情关怀vs.无共情关怀) × 3 (分配公平性: 公平vs.劣势不公平vs.优势不公平)被试内设计, 共37名被试参与实验, 被试作为响应者选择是否接受提议者的分配提议。行为结果显示劣势不公平条件下, 有共情情境的接受率高于无共情情境; 优势不公平条件下呈现相反的结果。ERP结果显示: 对于他人提出的优势不公平提议, 无共情情境较有共情情境下诱发了更负的前部N1 (anterior N1, AN1), 有共情情境比无共情情境下诱发了更大的P2波幅; 有共情情境下, 他人提出的劣势不公平提议较优势不公平和公平提议诱发了更负的内侧额叶负波(medial frontal negativity, MFN); P3在公平条件下的波幅较劣势不公平条件下更大, 并未受到共情关怀的调节。这些结果表明共情关怀不仅调节了公平决策行为, 还调节了公平加工的早期注意和动机及之后的认知和情绪加工, 但由P3表征的高级认知过程仅受到公平性的调节而不受共情水平的影响。     

Maximizing Tendency Predicts Delayed Marriage Among Japanese Adults

The present study examined whether maximizing tendency predicts Japanese adults' likelihood of getting married and their age at first marriage. Registered members of a survey company panel (n = 428) completed the Japanese version of the Relational Maximization Scale, which was used to assess maximizing tendency consisting of two factors. The first factor, “high standards,” was not related to either of the two variables under investigation. The second factor, “alternative search,” was positively related to age at first marriage but not to the likelihood of getting married. The results thus suggest that those who seek the best possible marriage partner tend to get married at a later age, but that they are as likely to get married as those who do not. The finding that maximizing tendency did not significantly predict the likelihood of marriage suggests that getting married remains a strong social norm in Japan.     

基于期望值最大化的理论何时失效：风险决策中为自己-为所有人决策差异的眼动研究

主流的风险决策理论专家发展了一系列基于期望值最大化(expectation-maximization)的理论, 以期捕获所有人的风险决策行为。然而大量证据表明, 这些基于期望值最大化的理论并不能如同描述性理论那样理想地描述单一个体的决策行为。本研究采用眼动追踪技术, 系统考察了个体在为所有人决策与为自己决策时的风险决策行为及信息加工过程的差异。本研究发现, 基于期望值最大化的理论可捕获为所有人决策或为自己多次决策时的情况, 却不能很好捕获个体为自己进行单次决策时的情况。本研究结果有助于理解基于期望值最大化的理论与启发式/非基于期望值最大化的理论的边界, 为风险决策理论的划分和发展提供实证参考。     

Self-efficacy dimensions and job search strategies

ObjectiveThis study explored the paths between dimensions of self-efficacy and job search strategies. An examination of social cognitive career theory and career adaptability enabled us to consider several paths between dimensions of self-efficacy and job search strategies, as well as among self-efficacy dimensions.MethodScales measuring these concepts were administered to a sample of 120 jobseekers.ResultsStructural analyses allowed us to confirm expected paths. Barrier coping efficacy is significantly related to career decision self-efficacy. Career decision self-efficacy and job search self-efficacy are related to exploratory strategy and to job search strategy.ConclusionResults are discussed with reference to the literature and in terms of practical implications. They highlight the need to implement interventions in order to increase barrier coping efficacy and career decision self-efficacy.     

Does morality predict aggressive driving? A conceptual analysis and exploratory empirical investigation

Risky and aggressive driving is an important cause of traffic casualties and as such a major health and cost problem to society. Given the consequences for others, risky and aggressive driving has a clear moral component. Surprisingly, however, there has been little research on the relation between morality and risky and aggressive driving behavior. In this study we aim at addressing this gap. First, we present a conceptual analysis of the relationship between moral values and aggressive driving behavior. For this purpose, we extend Schwartz’s integrated model of ethical decision making and apply it to the context of aggressive driving. This conceptual analysis shows that moral decision-making processes consist of several stages, like moral awareness, moral judgment and moral intent, each of which are influenced by individual and situational factors and all of which need to materialize before someone’s generally endorsed moral value affects concrete behavior. This suggests that the moral value-aggressive driving relationship is rather indeterminate. This conceptual picture is confirmed by our empirical investigation, which tests to what extent respondents’ moral values, measured through the Moral Foundation Questionnaire, are predictive of respondents’ aggressive driving behavior, as measured through an aggressive driving behavior scale. Our results show few and rather weak empirical relationships between moral values and committed aggressive driving behaviors, as was expected in light of our conceptual analysis. We derive several policy implications from these results.     

Do We Decide Intentionally?

In a recent article in this journal, Joshua Shepherd presents and rejects a new argument for the sceptical conclusion that everyday decisions aren't intentional actions. After relating his focal argument to a different argument for the same conclusion that is presented and rejected by Alfred Mele, I defend these arguments from extant criticisms, and develop new objections that shed light on the intentionality of typical decisions.