On Hare's attempt to bridge the Kantian-consequentialist gap: A response to Forschler's rejoinder

In a paper in this journal (Wall 2016), the author of the present paper critiqued Scott Forschler's attempt (2013) to establish that Jens Timmermann's argument (2005) against R. M. Hare's attempt (1981) to bridge the Kantian-consequentialist gap is unsuccessful. Forschler's thesis is that Hare's utilitarianism is strictly normative, not metaethical. In Hare's ethical rationalism, which is metaethical but contains no intrinsic ends (Forschler 2013), reason determines the proper ends, and preference satisfaction has no value prior to reason's determinations (Forschler 2013). The present author responded that Hare's moral approach presupposes that preference satisfaction is the ultimate end (Wall 2016) and that an analysis of preference satisfaction in Hare's moral approach cannot be confined to normative ethics. Forschler's rejoinder (2017) suggests that Hare's moral theory was misinterpreted by the author, who now shows that such a judgment results from significant oversights concerning the foundation of Hare's moral theory and utilitarian foundations.     

部分线索效应中的记忆监控

通过三个实验,利用学习时间分配作为指标,考察了学习者对部分线索效应记忆监控的状况。实验1考察被试在单次学习条件下的学习时间分配情况,结果发现被试在两种条件下所使用的学习时间没有明显差异。这说明在一次学习后被试还不能对部分线索的消极作用进行有效控制。实验2中,经过多次学习后,被试在部分线索条件下使用了更多的学习时间。实验3在自控步调学习前加入回溯性任务难度判断任务,结果发现经过一次学习,部分线索组和自由回忆组的判断值虽无显著差异,但部分线索组的自控步调学习时间显著长于自由回忆组,并且其回忆成绩也显著提高,说明回溯性任务难度判断过程本身是学习时间分配的制约因素。研究说明,为了加速主体对部分线索的消极影响的控制,引导主体对学习任务进行难度判断是一种有效的手段。     

选择盲：你不一定知道自己在选择什么

选择盲是指个体不能觉察他们的偏好与决策结果之间的不匹配, 即人们不能发现真实偏好被操纵, 这一现象在行为经济学中普遍存在。记忆表征理论主要从记忆表征编码的角度分析人们为什么不能发现选择的改变, 选择偏好理论则着重分析人们偏好反转的原因。选择盲的影响因素主要包括选项相似性和虚假反馈等。未来的研究需要从选择盲的心理机制与产生根源、影响因素和应用研究等方面进一步探讨。     

等待是一种折磨？等待时间知觉及其导致的非理性决策行为

等待时间知觉是指人们在等待过程中对等待时长的主观感受和心理体验, 它对人们的决策行为产生影响。影响等待时间知觉的客观因素包括等待过程的填充物、等待时间的确定性、接受服务的阶段和等待的物理环境等; 主观因素有负性情绪、自我控制和人格因素等。等待时间知觉导致的非理性决策行为包括时间沉没成本效应、“延迟-提前”框架效应、峰-终效应、偏好反转等。未来研究可从三个方面开展：(1) 时间启动和金钱启动下等待时间知觉的差异; (2) 基于时间心理账户视角研究等待时间知觉规律; (3) 借鉴时间知觉理论探讨等待(时间)影响决策行为的心理机制。     

不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响及其情景依赖性*

研究以Ellsberg选瓶任务为决策材料,探讨了不同任务特征下个体不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响。结果发现,获益情景下:高概率时高、低容忍度个体对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均偏好模糊规避;中概率时低容忍度个体比高容忍度个体表现出更低程度的模糊规避,前者倾向于模糊中立,后者倾向于模糊规避;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊中立。损失情景下:高概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊寻求;中概率时低容忍度比高容忍度个体更偏好模糊寻求,前者倾向于模糊寻求,后者倾向于模糊中立;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊规避。这表明,不确定性容忍度对模糊决策偏好产生作用,但这种作用会受到损益概率和损益结果的影响,具有情景依赖性。     

4～6岁幼儿颜色偏好实验研究

本实验采用对偶比较法．对4—6岁幼儿进行颜色偏好实验研究,结果表明：在4—6岁的年龄段中,幼儿颜色偏好顺序依次为：红、黄、橙、蓝、紫、绿;男女幼儿的颜色偏好有明显差异;不同年龄之间的幼儿颜色偏好没有明显差异。     

心理会计与推理选择研究的新进展

心理会计与推理选择是行为决策理论的两个重要领域,本文主要综述它们在消费者偏好建构中的作用。研究表明,心理会计的原则常常调节对奢侈品的购买与消费;在这一调节过程中,推理可能发挥重要作用。本文还评述,在建构消费偏好的过程中,消费者有时选择最充分的理由,而不是选择最佳的选项;在其它一些情况下,消费者聚焦理由可能导致购买决策与消费体验之间的矛盾,以及偏好的非传递性。     

Learning style,judgements of learning,and learning of verbal and visual information

The concept of learning style is immensely popular despite the lack of evidence showing that learning style influences performance. This study tested the hypothesis that the popularity of learning style is maintained because it is associated with subjective aspects of learning, such as judgements of learning (JOLs). Preference for verbal and visual information was assessed using the revised Verbalizer‐Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ). Then, participants studied a list of word pairs and a list of picture pairs, making JOLs (immediate, delayed, and global) while studying each list. Learning was tested by cued recall. The results showed that higher VVQ verbalizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for words, and higher VVQ visualizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for pictures. There was no association between VVQ scores and recall or JOL accuracy. As predicted, learning style was associated with subjective aspects of learning but not objective aspects of learning.     

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles may exhibit more problem behavior during certain preference assessments. We compared three common preference assessments to determine which resulted in fewer problem behaviors. The paired stimulus and multiple‐stimulus without replacement assessments produced higher rates of problem behavior than the free operant (FO) assessment, suggesting that the FO assessment may be the most appropriate assessment for individuals who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles.