得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响

以福利权衡率(WTR)为利他程度的指标, 通过3个实验逐步深入地考察了得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响。实验1的结果表明, 得失情境并未改变被试的WTR。实验2引入他人底线、现状和目标三个参照点变量, 发现被试获益情境下的WTR高于损失情境, 且WTR从高到低依次为他人临近底线、目标和现状; 他人临近底线时, 被试在获益情境下的WTR高于损失情境, 而他人临近现状和目标时, 个体在得失情境下的WTR无显著差异。实验3进一步引入心理距离变量, 发现心理距离较近他人的WTR高于较远他人, 且与得失情境和参照点发生了复杂的交互效应, 得失情境的主效应消失了, 但总体上并未改变实验2发现的参照点效应。这些结果对于更深入地理解得失不对称效应、三参照点理论及社会折扣和自我-他人决策差异研究的相关发现具有一定的启示意义。     

Decision by sampling

We present a theory of decision by sampling (DbS) in which, in contrast with traditional models, there are no underlying psychoeconomic scales. Instead, we assume that an attribute's subjective value is constructed from a series of binary, ordinal comparisons to a sample of attribute values drawn from memory and is its rank within the sample. We assume that the sample reflects both the immediate distribution of attribute values from the current decision's context and also the background, real-world distribution of attribute values. DbS accounts for concave utility functions; losses looming larger than gains; hyperbolic temporal discounting; and the overestimation of small probabilities and the underestimation of large probabilities.     

Individual Differences in Delay Discounting: Differences are Quantitative with Gains,but Qualitative with Losses

Research on delay discounting and inter‐temporal choice has yielded significant insights into decision making. Although research has focused on delayed gains, the discounting of losses is potentially important in precisely those areas where the discounting of gains has proved informative (e.g., substance use and abuse). Participants in the current study completed both a questionnaire consisting of choices between immediate and delayed gains and an analogous questionnaire consisting of choices between immediate and delayed losses. For almost all participants, the likelihood of choosing the delayed gain decreased with increases in the wait until it would be received. In contrast, when losses (i.e., payments) were involved, different participants showed quite different patterns of choices. More specifically, although the majority of the participants became increasingly likely to choose to pay later as the delay was increased, some participants appeared to be debt averse, in that they were more likely to choose the immediate payment option when the delay was long than when it was brief. These debt‐averse participants also were more likely to choose to wait for a larger delayed gain than other participants and scored lower on Impulsiveness than those who showed the typical pattern of discounting delayed losses. Taken together, these results suggest that in the case of delayed gains, people differ only quantitatively (i.e., in how steeply they discount), whereas in the case of delayed losses, people differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively, contrary to the common assumption that a single impulsivity trait underlies choices between immediate and delayed outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of decision theory is that more money is preferred to less: the principle of desired wealth. Based on this and other principles such as reference dependence and loss aversion, researchers have derived and demonstrated mental accounting (MA) rules for multiple outcome situations. Experiment 1 tested the invariance of the desired wealth principle and two mental accounting rules (mixed gain, e.g. $100 gain and a $50 loss; mixed loss, e.g. $100 loss and a $50 gain) across types of decision maker and frame. The desired wealth principle and the MA rule for mixed gains were found to vary depending upon (1) the thoughtfulness of the decision maker (need for cognition, NC), and (2) the frame used to describe gains and losses (e.g. a gain of $x versus a gain of y%). The MA rule for mixed losses, however, was found to be immune to framing effects, even among people who are generally less thoughtful. The differential processing of gains and losses across frames (dollar versus percentage) and individuals (less versus more thoughtful) was tested further in Experiment 2 where evaluations of mixed losses were made at the level of the gestalt as well as the constituent (the gain and the loss being evaluated separately). Framing effects were evidenced only among subjects lower in NC and only when the constituent gain was evaluated. Evaluations of the overall mixed loss and the constituent loss were comparable across situation and individual, suggesting that losses motivate greater processing among people otherwise inclined toward cognitive miserliness. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Revisiting the Gain–Loss Separability Assumption in Prospect Theory

A fundamental assumption of prospect theory is gain–loss separability (GLS)—the assertion that the overall utility of a prospect can be expressed as a function of the utilities of its positive and negative components. Violations of GLS may potentially limit the generalization of results from studies of single‐domain prospects to mixed prospects and systematically distort the predictions of the theory. Violations also have implications for how choices with positive and negative components should be presented to decision makers. Previous studies, using different elicitation methods, have documented different rates, and types, of systematic violations of GLS. We discuss the differences between two specific elicitation methods—binary choice and certainty equivalents—and report results of a new study of GLS using both methods and randomly generated prospects. We compare the extent and nature of GLS violations under the two elicitation methods using between‐subject and within‐subject analyses. We find (i) systematic violations of GLS under both methods, (ii) higher rates of violations under choice, (iii) higher sensitivity to the outcomes for the certainty equivalents, which is consistent with the predictions of the scale‐compatibility hypothesis, and (iv) different patterns of violations under the two methods, which are explained by method‐specific preferences. We discuss the psychological mechanisms underlying the findings and the implications for presenting information with gain and loss components. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hello/goodbye new families: group work with five looked-after siblings in foster care together awaiting a move to separate adoptive families

This paper describes group work with five siblings aged between three and nine. They were taken into care following severe abuse involving neglect, physical and emotional abuse. In it, we consider the impact of the losses on the network and the children. We explore how Freud, in his paper ‘Mourning and melancholia’ (1917), and others who built on his work, helped us understand the children’s losses. The sibling group was planned in order to address the children’s need to say goodbye to their birth parents, their foster carers and to each other and to prepare them for their individual separate adoptions. The group ran for 18 months and ended when four children had been placed in their adoptive homes; the last child to be adopted was then seen individually until she was also placed. The group work is described with the use of quotes from sessional material to illuminate the processes for these children in facing their complicated and ambivalent losses, the mourning process and their progress towards becoming individuals in their own right rather than enacting fragmented functional parts/roles on behalf of their sibling group as a whole. Their mourning of the loss of each other was complicated by their earlier reliance on each other to manage the difficulties they had faced when surviving their abusive early lives together.     

Self‐Control Moderates Decision‐Making Behavior When Minimizing Losses versus Maximizing Gains

We examined (1) whether people would be more responsive to the delayed consequences of their decisions when attempting to minimize losses than when attempting to maximize gains in a history‐dependent decision‐making task and (2) how trait self‐control would moderate such an effect. In two experiments, participants performed a dynamic decision‐making task where they chose one of two options on each trial. The increasing option always gave a smaller immediate reward but caused future rewards for both options to increase. The decreasing option always gave a larger immediate reward but caused future rewards for both options to decrease. In Experiment 1 where the two options had equivalent expected value in the long run, participants were more prone to select the increasing option, which yielded larger benefits on future trials, in the loss‐minimization condition than in the gain‐maximization condition. Trait self‐control moderated the effect of losses by enhancing the effect for low self‐control participants while attenuating it for high self‐control participants. In Experiment 2 where selecting the increasing option was suboptimal, low self‐control participants still attempted to reduce losses on future trials by selecting the increasing option more often than high self‐control participants. These results suggest that decision makers value delayed consequences of their actions more in a losses domain relative to a gains domain and low self‐control individuals are more susceptible to such an effect. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The sign effect,systematic devaluations and zero discounting

The sign effect is the steeper discounting of gains compared to losses. However, we see a greater sign effect on an individual level compared to an aggregate level. In this experiment, we compare discounting of gains and losses on an individual and aggregate level, to explore further details about when and to what extent human adults discount. Thirty-one participants went through a computer-based choice-task procedure of hypothetical monetary gains and losses. The results show clear qualitative differences between discounting of gains and losses, adding empirical data to support the sign effect. The results also support previous findings that show that aggregate and individual results do not always correspond. Further, the within-subject details showing zero discounting or nonsystematic changes concerning losses, replicate earlier studies suggesting that discounting of gains and losses involve different reinforcing contingencies. The present study expands on this research area by including verbal reports, supplementing details about the unobserved reinforcing contingencies. Implications of research on discounting may indicate how to deal with decision-making challenges and might shed light on why predictions about complex decision making sometimes fail.