禀赋效应的心理机制及其影响因素

禀赋效应是指个体在拥有某物品时对该物品的估价高于没有拥有该物品时的估价的现象。这一现象在行为经济学中普遍存在。禀赋效应的研究范式包括经典研究范式与物物交换范式。禀赋效应的心理机制主要包括损失规避与查询理论。禀赋效应的影响因素主要包括认知角度、动机、情绪、交易物品的特征、研究设计的选择等。未来的研究需要从禀赋效应的适用条件、产生根源、研究范式的改进等方面进一步探讨。     

个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响

摘 要 以中国大学生为被试,采用问卷的方式,探讨权力对损失规避倾向的影响。实验一发现,与低权力被试相比,高权力被试具有较少的损失规避。实验二进一步考察权力影响损失规避的原因机制,结果发现,权力对收益的价值估计没有影响,但降低了个体对损失的价值估计,从而导致损失规避的减少。结果表明,权力除了激活个体对收益的趋近,还可能抑制个体对损失的感知,权力也是影响决策的因素之一。 关键词 权力 损失规避 估计价值     

图形面积判断任务下信息加工模式和信息呈现方式对吸引效应的影响

研究使用图形面积判断任务取代典型的双属性决策框架, 考察了不同信息加工模式和信息呈现方式对吸引效应的影响。实验1比较了不同信息加工模式对吸引效应的影响, 结果发现, 当被试以直觉的信息加工方式进行面积比较判断时, 吸引效应不显著, 而以分析的信息加工方式判断时吸引效应明显存在, 后者效应强度显著大于前者。实验2通过调整图形排列顺序, 比较了刺激材料呈现方式对吸引效应的影响, 结果表明, 被试以直觉的信息加工方式进行判断时吸引效应依然存在, 但其表现要受信息呈现方式影响, 相对于将目标图形放置于诱引图形和竞争图形之间, 将诱引图形放置于目标图形和竞争图形之间而成为判断背景时, 吸引效应强度更大。研究提出了吸引效应形成的两阶段理论, 认为吸引效应产生的根源同时来自直觉的和分析的两个信息加工阶段, 研究也证实信息呈现方式对被试信息加工方式造成较大影响, 进而影响吸引效应强度。     

吃亏是福：择“值”选项而获真利

主流决策理论认为人们当遵从个人利益最大化原则, 基于“价” (value)做选择—— 挑选能直接给自己带来最大获益的选项。但决策者实际上经常会基于“值” (worth)做选择—— 挑选令自己当下吃亏或损失的选项, 并认为“值得”。为探索选择吃亏的选项究竟“值”在何处, 研究1利用情境实验操纵“基于‘值’选择”, 发现选择表面吃亏的“值”选项反而能给个体带来更大的延迟获益。研究2a采用归纳法, 确定了吃亏选项会在“惠、善、义、法” 4个潜在维度上被决策者赋予更大的“值”; 研究2b利用测量4个潜在维度的情境测验, 以销售群体的销售绩效和主观幸福感为真实获益的衡量指标, 验证了“基于‘值’选择”与现实生活中的物质和精神获益间存在正向的线性预测关系。研究首次为中国文化中的“吃亏是福”提供了实证证据的支持, 揭示诱使人们选择吃亏选项的是“后福”—— 赋在潜在维度上的延迟获益。     

Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: reluctance to making Integrative Gambit Offers

In the present study we address a multi‐issue negotiation agenda, where several issues are under consideration and parties have different priorities among these issues. We suggest that in such agendas loss aversion and within issue anchoring may constrain the configuration of offers that parties propose to each other during the course of negotiation. We specifically focus on offers in which negotiators self‐propose to give the other party more than was demanded on one of the issues, while still maintaining or improving their overall value. We term such offers Integrative Gambit Offers (“IGO”s) and show that although making such offers improves integrative negotiation outcome, the frequency of making them is relatively low, and does not increase as negotiators gain experience with the task. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Loss aversion,diminishing sensitivity,and the effect of experience on repeated decisions

Three experiments are presented that explore the assertion that loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity drive the effect of experience on choice behavior. The experiments are focused on repeated choice tasks where decision makers choose repeatedly between alternatives and get feedback after each choice. Experiments 1a and 1b show that behavioral tendencies that were previously interpreted as indications of loss aversion in decisions from experience are better described as products of diminishing sensitivity to absolute payoffs. Experiment 2 highlights a nominal magnitude effect: A decrease in the magnitude of the nominal payoffs eliminates the evidence for diminishing sensitivity. These and related previous results can be captured with a model that assumes reliance on small samples of subjective experiences, and an increase in diminishing sensitivity with payoff variability. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

厌而避额外之“利”；喜而趋额外之“害”

趋利避害是生物的本能。《管子·禁藏》云：夫凡人之情, 见利莫能勿就, 见害莫能勿避。“两利相权取其重, 两害相权取其轻”是规范性决策理论的一基本原则。本研究以金钱作为奖赏或惩罚刺激, 检验人们能否理性地遵循“价值最大化”原则。在实验中, 主试以检查硬币生产年代的数目为由, 让被试逐枚地感受两个金钱序列：10元硬币序列(由20枚五角硬币组成)和10.3元硬币序列(由20枚五角硬币和3枚一角硬币组成),随后评定获得(或损失)各金钱序列的高兴(或不高兴)程度, 并从中选择一金钱序列(与硬币等值的金钱)作为其奖赏(或惩罚)。实验为2 (3枚一角硬币在序列首vs. 3枚一角硬币在序列尾)´2(先检查10元硬币序列vs. 先检查10.3元硬币序列)´2(损失vs. 获得)三因素设计, 每种条件随机分配15名商学院学生被试。结果表明, 被试倾向选择获益少(10元)和损失多(-10.3元)的金钱序列; 且获益大(10.3元)时高兴程度小, 损失小(-10元)时不高兴程度大。这一结果意味着：“聊”并不胜于“无”,反而是“无”胜于“聊”。其中, 伴随着违背价值最大化原则所产生的情感亦有悖逻辑。负性情感的引发一般有其“逻辑正确”的原因(如, 无惠而不乐); 而引发本研究负性情感的原因实属“逻辑错误”(如, 惠多而不乐)。这种不曾被定义而类似于“冤”的情感不仅见于个人,也见于民族、国家间的持续交往, 值得进一步研究。     

Where are you,my beloved?: On absence,loss, and the enigma of telepathic dreams

The subject of dream telepathy (especially patients' telepathic dreams) and related phenomena in the psychoanalytic context has been a controversial, disturbing ‘foreign body’ ever since it was introduced into psychoanalysis by Freud in 1921. Telepathy ‐ suffering (or intense feeling) at a distance (Greek: pathos + tele)‐is the transfer or communication of thoughts, impressions and information over distance between two people without the normal operation of the recognized sense organs. The author offers a comprehensive historical review of the psychoanalytic literature on this controversial issue, beginning with Freud' years‐long struggles over the possibility of thoughttransference and dream telepathy. She then describes her own analytic encounter over the years with five patients' telepathic dreams' dreams involving precise details of the time, place, sensory impressions, and experiential states that the analyst was in at that time, which the patients could not have known through ordinary sensory perception and communication. The author's ensuing explanation combines contributory factors involving patient, archaic communication and analyst. Each of these patients, in early childhood, had a mother who was emotionally absent‐within‐absence, due to the absence of a significant figure in her own life. This primary traumatic loss was imprinted in their nascent selves and inchoate relating to others, with a fixation on a nonverbal, archaic mode of communication. The patient's telepathic dream is formed as a search engine when the analyst is suddenly emotionally absent, in order to find the analyst and thus halt the process of abandonment and prevent collapse into the despair of the early traumatization. Hence, the telepathic dream embodies an enigmatic ‘impossible’ extreme of patient‐analyst deep‐level interconnectedness and unconscious communication in the analytic process. This paper is part of the author's endeavour to grasp the true experiential scope and therapeutic significance of this dimension of fundamental patient‐analyst interconnectedness.     

The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes

A hearing loss leads to problems with speech perception; this is exacerbated when competing noise is present. The speech signal is recognized by the cognitive system of the listener; noise and distortion tax the cognitive system when interpreting it. The auditory system must interact with the cognitive system for optimal signal decoding. This article discusses this interaction between the signal and cognitive system based on two models: an auditory model describing signal transmission and degeneration due to a hearing loss and a cognitive model for Ease of Language Understanding. The signal distortion depends on the specifics of the hearing impairment and thus differently distorted signals can affect the cognitive system in different ways. Consequently, the severity of a hearing loss may not only depend on the lesion itself but also on the cognitive recourses required to interpret the signal.     

EFFECTS OF POINT‐LOSS PUNISHERS ON HUMAN SIGNAL‐DETECTION PERFORMANCE

Three experiments using human participants varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers or point‐loss punishers in two‐alternative signal‐detection procedures. Experiment 1 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses (Group A) and point‐loss punishers for errors (Group B) across conditions. Response bias varied systematically as a function of the relative reinforcer or punisher frequencies. Experiment 2 arranged two conditions — one where an unequal ratio of reinforcement (5:1 or 1:5) was presented without punishment (R‐only), and another where the same reinforcer ratio was presented with an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers (R+P). Response bias was significantly greater in the R‐only condition than the R+P condition, supporting a subtractive model of punishment. Experiment 3 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses across four unequal reinforcer ratios (5:1, 2:1, 1:2, 1:5) both without (R‐only) and with (R+P) an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers for errors. Response bias varied systematically with changes in relative reinforcer frequency for both R‐only and R+P conditions, with 5 out of 8 participants showing increases in sensitivity estimates from R‐only to R+P conditions. Overall, the results indicated that punishers have similar but opposite effects to reinforcers in detection procedures and that combined reinforcer and punisher effects might be better modeled by a subtractive punishment model than an additive punishment model, consistent with research using concurrent‐schedule choice procedures.