本文選題：危機(jī)決策 + 認(rèn)知風(fēng)格　； 參考：《西北大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：危機(jī)決策是指決策個(gè)體在時(shí)間、資源、信息和人力等有限的情境之下對(duì)危機(jī)事件做出的判斷和快速行為的過(guò)程,該類(lèi)決策具有極高的不確定性和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)性等特點(diǎn)。危機(jī)決策的影響因素涉及到個(gè)體與組織等多個(gè)層面。對(duì)決策個(gè)體而言,個(gè)體的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格、認(rèn)知能力以及年齡等因素均有可能影響到其危機(jī)決策。作為決策研究領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)較為新穎的課題,危機(jī)決策的研究方法仍處于不斷探索和研究之中。 本研究聚焦于危機(jī)決策的個(gè)體差異層面,借鑒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策的實(shí)證研究方法,以個(gè)體的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為自變量,危機(jī)決策的傾向與決策時(shí)間為因變量,設(shè)計(jì)認(rèn)知實(shí)驗(yàn)探究個(gè)體的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度二者對(duì)其危機(jī)決策的影響。實(shí)驗(yàn)一以認(rèn)知風(fēng)格為自變量,以危機(jī)決策傾向與決策時(shí)間為因變量,是單因素方差分析的實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),共計(jì)161名被試參與實(shí)驗(yàn)研究。實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)康脑谟诳疾靷�(gè)體的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格對(duì)危機(jī)決策的影響。實(shí)驗(yàn)二以?xún)?nèi)隱態(tài)度為自變量,以危機(jī)決策傾向和時(shí)間為因變量,也是單因素方差分析的實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),共計(jì)112名被試參與實(shí)驗(yàn)研究。這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的目的是探討個(gè)體的內(nèi)隱態(tài)度對(duì)危機(jī)決策的影響。實(shí)驗(yàn)三以認(rèn)知風(fēng)格與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度二者為自變量，，以危機(jī)決策傾向和時(shí)間為因變量,是雙因素方差分析的實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),共計(jì)182名被試參與實(shí)驗(yàn)研究。采用2認(rèn)知風(fēng)格(場(chǎng)獨(dú)立型VS場(chǎng)依存型)×2內(nèi)隱態(tài)度(風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型VS風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避型)的被試間設(shè)計(jì),實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)康氖茄芯總�(gè)體的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度對(duì)危機(jī)決策的交互影響。 研究結(jié)果顯示： (1)不同認(rèn)知風(fēng)格的被試(場(chǎng)獨(dú)立型VS場(chǎng)依存型)在危機(jī)決策時(shí)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好存在差異。在危機(jī)決策的過(guò)程中,認(rèn)知風(fēng)格為場(chǎng)獨(dú)立型的被試比認(rèn)知風(fēng)格為場(chǎng)依存型的被試更傾向于選擇“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求”的決策選項(xiàng)。 (2)不同認(rèn)知風(fēng)格的被試(場(chǎng)獨(dú)立型VS場(chǎng)依存型)在危機(jī)決策時(shí)間上不存在顯著性差異。 (3)不同內(nèi)隱態(tài)度的被試(風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型VS風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避型)在危機(jī)決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好上差異顯著。進(jìn)一步的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型的被試相比較,內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避型的被試在危機(jī)決策時(shí)反而更加容易鋌而走險(xiǎn)。 (4)不同內(nèi)隱態(tài)度的被試在危機(jī)決策所用的時(shí)間上亦不存在顯著性差異。 (5)在內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避的條件下,被試不同的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格對(duì)危機(jī)決策的傾向沒(méi)有顯著性影響。在內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求的條件下,被試不同的認(rèn)知風(fēng)格對(duì)危機(jī)決策傾向有顯著的影響。場(chǎng)獨(dú)立—風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型被試比場(chǎng)依存—風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型被試在危機(jī)事件中更可能采取風(fēng)險(xiǎn)較大的決策。 (6)在危機(jī)決策時(shí)間上,認(rèn)知風(fēng)格與內(nèi)隱態(tài)度對(duì)危機(jī)決策的時(shí)間的主效應(yīng)均不顯著,二者交互作用也不顯著。在危機(jī)決策的過(guò)程中,認(rèn)知風(fēng)格為場(chǎng)獨(dú)立型的被試比認(rèn)知風(fēng)格為場(chǎng)依存型的被試所用決策時(shí)間更短；內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求型的被試比內(nèi)隱態(tài)度為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避型的被試所用決策時(shí)間更短。
[Abstract]:Crisis decision-making refers to the process of judging and fast acting on crisis events under the limited circumstances of time, resources, information and manpower. This kind of decision has the characteristics of high uncertainty and risk. The influencing factors of the crisis decision involve the individual and the organization and so on. Cognitive style, cognitive ability and age may affect the crisis decision-making. As a new topic in the field of decision-making, the research method of crisis decision is still in constant exploration and research.
This study focuses on the individual difference level of crisis decision, using the empirical research method of risk decision-making as the independent variable of individual cognitive style and implicit attitude, the tendency of crisis decision making and decision time as the dependent variable, the influence of cognitive style and implicit attitude of two individuals on the crisis decision is designed by the cognitive experiment. The cognitive style is the independent variable, with the risk decision tendency and the decision time as the dependent variable, it is the experimental design of the single factor variance analysis. The total of 161 subjects are involved in the experimental study. The purpose of the experiment is to investigate the influence of individual cognitive style on the crisis decision. In experiment two, the implicit attitude is the independent variable, and the tendency of crisis decision and time are changed. A total of 112 subjects were involved in experimental study. The purpose of this experiment was to explore the influence of individual implicit attitude on crisis decision. In experiment three, the cognitive style and implicit attitude two were independent variables, and the risk decision-making tendency and the time as the dependent variable were the experimental setting of the two factor variance analysis. A total of 182 subjects participated in the experimental study. The subjects were designed with 2 cognitive styles (field independent VS field dependent) x 2 implicit attitude (risk seeking VS risk aversion). The experimental purpose was to study the interaction between individual cognitive style and implicit attitude on crisis decision-making.
The results of the study show that:
(1) there is a difference in risk preference between the subjects of different cognitive styles (field independent VS field dependent type) in crisis decision-making. In the process of crisis decision, the subjects with cognitive style as field independent are more inclined to choose the choice of "risk seeking" than the subjects with the cognitive style as the field dependent subjects.
(2) there is no significant difference in the time of crisis decision between subjects with different cognitive styles (field independent VS field dependent).
(3) the subjects of different implicit attitudes (risk seeking type VS risk aversion) have significant differences in risk preference in crisis decision-making. Further studies have found that the subjects with implicit attitude as risk aversion are more likely to take risks in crisis decision-making than those with implicit attitude as risk seeking subjects.
(4) there is no significant difference in the time spent on crisis decision-making between subjects with different implicit attitudes.
(5) under the condition of risk aversion of implicit attitude, the different cognitive styles of the subjects have no significant influence on the tendency of crisis decision. Under the condition of risk seeking, the different cognitive styles of the subjects have significant influence on the tendency of crisis decision. The field independent risk seeking subjects are compared with the field dependence risk seeking type subjects. It is more likely to take risky decisions in crisis events.
(6) in the time of crisis decision, the main effect of cognitive style and implicit attitude on the time of crisis decision is not significant, and the interaction of the two is also not significant. In the process of crisis decision making, the cognitive style is shorter than the field dependent type, the cognitive style is shorter than the cognitive style for field dependent subjects; the implicit attitude is the risk seeking type. The subjects' decision-making time was shorter than that of the implicit attitude risk averse type.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：B842.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 袁輝;重大突發(fā)事件及其應(yīng)急決策研究[J];安全;1996年02期

2 楊艷;劉虹;;不同認(rèn)知風(fēng)格者決策偏向的研究[J];湖南文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

3 郭瑞鵬,孔昭君;危機(jī)決策的特點(diǎn)、方法及對(duì)策研究[J];科技管理研究;2005年08期

4 謝晉宇;危機(jī)管理對(duì)決策者的壓力、影響及其應(yīng)對(duì)[J];中國(guó)職業(yè)安全衛(wèi)生管理體系認(rèn)證;2004年04期

5 王婷;論危機(jī)決策中領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的心理素質(zhì)及其優(yōu)化[J];遼寧工程技術(shù)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年01期

6 梁嘉峰;應(yīng)湘;;大學(xué)生決策的內(nèi)隱偏向研究[J];社會(huì)心理科學(xué);2010年01期

7 江啟靖;周詳;;危機(jī)決策的理性與非理性[J];企業(yè)管理;2009年10期

8 張厚粲,鄭日昌;關(guān)于認(rèn)知方式的測(cè)驗(yàn)研究——對(duì)我國(guó)大、中、小學(xué)生場(chǎng)依存性特征的調(diào)查分析[J];心理科學(xué)通訊;1982年02期

9 楊繼平;鄭建君;;情緒對(duì)危機(jī)決策質(zhì)量的影響[J];心理學(xué)報(bào);2009年06期

10 汪祚軍;歐創(chuàng)巍;李紓;;整合模型還是占優(yōu)啟發(fā)式模型? 從齊當(dāng)別模型視角進(jìn)行的檢驗(yàn)[J];心理學(xué)報(bào);2010年08期

本文編號(hào)：1929723