本文選題：兩人決策 + 人格特質(zhì)　； 參考：《北京郵電大學(xué)》2017年博士論文

【摘要】：在企業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)背景下,人們對(duì)于個(gè)人決策、輪流決策和共同決策的主觀偏好如何?在實(shí)際風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策情境下,人們的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好、收益、情緒體驗(yàn)是否有差異?個(gè)人風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策是否和感覺尋求相關(guān)?在輪流決策和共同決策中,不同感覺尋求組合的被試的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益是否有差異?本研究針對(duì)以上問題,結(jié)合管理學(xué)相關(guān)決策理論和心理學(xué)人格特質(zhì)理論、認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)相關(guān)研究方法,通過仿真冒險(xiǎn)任務(wù)、感覺尋求量表、情感體驗(yàn)、ERP腦電實(shí)驗(yàn)相結(jié)合的方式,對(duì)于個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)研究。首先,本文通過企業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問題相關(guān)問卷研究發(fā)現(xiàn),人們最傾向于選擇共同決策,其次是個(gè)人決策,最不傾向于選擇輪流決策。其次,通過行為學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn),個(gè)人決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好大于輪流決策和共同決策。個(gè)人決策的收益小于輪流決策和共同決策。再次,在情感體驗(yàn)方面,個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策的成就感無差異;個(gè)人決策的控制感體驗(yàn)小于輪流決策和共同決策的控制感體驗(yàn),輪流決策和共同決策的控制感無差異。個(gè)人決策喜悅感小于共同決策的喜悅感。然而,個(gè)人決策與輪流決策時(shí)的喜悅感、輪流決策與共同決策時(shí)的喜悅感沒有顯著性差異。個(gè)人決策的后悔感程度要高于共同決策時(shí)的后悔感,但個(gè)人決策的后悔感和輪流決策的后悔感,輪流決策的后悔感和共同決策的后悔感無顯著差異。接下來,按感覺尋求總分分組,低低組合中,輪流決策時(shí)被試的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好最低,其收益最高;共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好雖然不顯著低于個(gè)人決策,但均值仍低于個(gè)人,且收益高于個(gè)人。在一高一低感覺尋求總分組合中,低感覺尋求被試的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好在個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策模式下無差異;輪流決策、共同決策的收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。高感覺尋求被試的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好在個(gè)人決策高于輪流決策;輪流決策、共同決策的收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。兩名高感覺尋求總分組合中,個(gè)人決策、共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好均高于輪流決策;輪流決策、共同決策的收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。按放縱欲望分?jǐn)?shù)分組,兩名低放縱欲望組合中,個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無差異;輪流決策、共同決策的收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。一高一低兩名放縱欲望被試組合中,個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無差異;共同決策高于輪流決策的收益,輪流決策高于個(gè)人決策收益。高感覺尋求被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策收益高于個(gè)人決策和輪流決策收益。兩名高放縱欲望被試組合中,被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于共同決策,共同決策高于輪流決策;共同決策、輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。按危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)分組,兩名低危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)組合中,個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無差異;輪流決策高于個(gè)人決策收益。低分被試在一高一低危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)分?jǐn)?shù)被試組合中,個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無差異;輪流決策、共同決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。一高一低兩名危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)被試組合中,高分?jǐn)?shù)被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策和輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。兩名高危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)被試組合中,被試的個(gè)人決策和共同決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策和輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。按不甘寂寞分組,兩名低不甘寂寞被試組合中,被試的個(gè)人決策、輪流決策、共同決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無顯著差異;共同決策和輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。一高一低兩名不甘寂寞被試組合中,低分?jǐn)?shù)被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策和輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。一高一低兩名不甘寂寞被試組合中,高分?jǐn)?shù)被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策和輪流決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。兩名高不甘寂寞被試組合中,被試的個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好高于輪流決策;共同決策收益高于個(gè)人決策收益。按經(jīng)歷尋求分組,兩名低經(jīng)歷尋求被試組合中,被試的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好無顯著差異;輪流決策、共同決策收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。在一高一低經(jīng)歷尋求被試組合中,低分?jǐn)?shù)被試輪流決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏低于個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好;輪流決策、共同決策收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。在一高一低經(jīng)歷尋求被試組合中,高分?jǐn)?shù)被試輪流決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏低于個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好;輪流決策、共同決策收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。在兩名高經(jīng)歷尋求被試組合中,被試輪流決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏低于個(gè)人決策風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好;輪流決策、共同決策收益均高于個(gè)人決策收益。綜合來說,輪流決策、共同決策均優(yōu)于個(gè)人決策。按感覺尋求總分分組,輪流決策中高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好大于高低組合、低低組合。收益方面無顯著差異。共同決策中低低組合、低高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好低于高高組合。低低組合、低高組合收益低于高高組合。按危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)分?jǐn)?shù)分組,輪流決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益均無差異。共同決策中低低組合低于低高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好,低低、低高組合收益均小于高高組合收益。按經(jīng)歷尋求分組,輪流決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益均無差異。共同決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好均無差異。低低組合的收益顯著低于低高組合。按放縱欲望分組,輪流決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好均無差異。低高組合的收益顯著低于高高組合。共同決策中低低組合、低高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好顯著低于高高組合。低低組合的收益顯著低于低高組合。按不甘寂寞分組,輪流決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益均無顯著差異。共同決策中低低組合、低高組合、高高組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益均無顯著差異。最后,在腦電研究方面,輪流“存存”和個(gè)人“存存”的差值(ASS-ISS)與輪流主動(dòng)決策與輪流被動(dòng)決策的P300差異(AAP-APP)正相關(guān)。共同“存”與個(gè)人“存”(JS-IS)與共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策的FRN差異(JAF-JPF)相關(guān)性邊緣顯著。共同“爆存”和個(gè)人“爆存”的差值(JPS-IPS)與共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策的P300差異(JAP-JPP)相關(guān)性邊緣顯著。輪流主動(dòng)決策與輪流被動(dòng)決策的FRN差異值(AAF-APF)和輪流控制感與個(gè)人控制感差值正相關(guān)。輪流主動(dòng)決策與個(gè)人主動(dòng)決策P300差異值(AAP-IAP)和輪流控制感與個(gè)人控制感差值正相關(guān)。輪流被動(dòng)決策與個(gè)人主動(dòng)決策FRN差異值(AAF-IAF)分別和輪流控制感與個(gè)人控制感差值、輪流后悔感與個(gè)人后悔感差值正相關(guān)。輪流被動(dòng)決策與個(gè)人主動(dòng)決策FRN差異值(APF-IAF)和輪流成就感與個(gè)人成就感差值正相關(guān)。共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策的P300差異值(JAP-JPP)和共同控制感與個(gè)人控制感差值正相關(guān)。共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策的FRN差異值(JAF-JPF)和共同后悔感與個(gè)人后悔感差值正相關(guān)。共同被動(dòng)決策與個(gè)人主動(dòng)決策的FRN差異值(JPF-IPF)和共同后悔感與個(gè)人后悔感差值正相關(guān)。共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策的P300差異值(JAP-JPP)和共同成就感與個(gè)人成就感差值相關(guān)性邊緣顯著。輪流主動(dòng)決策與個(gè)人主動(dòng)決策P300差異值(AAP-IAP)和尋求危險(xiǎn)與冒險(xiǎn)(TAS)正相關(guān)。共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)決策FRN差異值(JAF-JPF)和尋求尋求經(jīng)歷(ES)邊緣負(fù)相關(guān)。共同主動(dòng)決策與共同被動(dòng)P300差異值(AAP-APP)和不甘寂寞(BS)邊緣負(fù)相關(guān)。因此在公司組織架構(gòu)設(shè)置方面,總體上我們建議采用兩名決策者的架構(gòu)。但應(yīng)考慮兩名決策者的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)尋求人格特質(zhì)的差異及組合。本文創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)主要包括研究目的、研究?jī)?nèi)容、研究方法三方面的創(chuàng)新。結(jié)合其他學(xué)科領(lǐng)域關(guān)于輪流的研究,本研究首次定義并研究了輪流決策;通過對(duì)個(gè)人決策和群體決策優(yōu)劣的比較,本研究首次對(duì)兩人決策進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)研究。情緒是決策雙系統(tǒng)理論中的一個(gè)因素,前人的研究也多局限于個(gè)人決策研究中,本研究第一次研究了在輪流決策和共同決策中的情緒體驗(yàn),以及與個(gè)人決策情緒體驗(yàn)的差異。感覺尋求是研究較多的人格特質(zhì),但之前研究都是針對(duì)個(gè)人決策而言。本研究中將兩人感覺尋求的組合作為研究對(duì)象,分析了在輪流決策和共同決策模式下,不同人格特質(zhì)組合對(duì)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好及收益的影響。本研究將心理學(xué)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)模擬任務(wù)BART第一次應(yīng)用在管理領(lǐng)域的研究中。同時(shí),將行為學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)和量表相結(jié)合,實(shí)現(xiàn)了跨學(xué)科研究。本研究首次將ERP腦電實(shí)驗(yàn)研究用于雙人決策相關(guān)研究中,為個(gè)人決策、輪流決策和共同決策的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏好、情感體驗(yàn)、人格特質(zhì)的相關(guān)性提供了科學(xué)依據(jù)。
[Abstract]:In the context of enterprise risk, what are the subjective preferences of individual decision making, rotation decision and common decision? Are there any differences in risk preference, income, emotional experience in the actual risk decision-making situation? Is personal risk decision related to feeling seeking? In a round decision and joint decision, a combination of different senses is sought. Whether there is a difference in risk preference and income, this study, in view of the above problems, combines management related decision-making theory and psychological personality trait theory, cognitive neuroscience related research methods, through the simulation of adventure task, sensation seeking scale, emotional experience, ERP EEG testing, for individual decision-making, rotation decision-making, In this paper, a systematic study of decision making is carried out. First, through the study of the questionnaire of enterprise risk, it is found that people are most inclined to choose common decision, second is personal decision, and the least inclined to choose rotation decision. Secondly, through behavioral experiment, the risk preference of individual decision is greater than that of rotation decision and joint decision. The income is less than the rotation decision and the common decision. Thirdly, there is no difference in the sense of achievement in the emotional experience, the individual decision, the rotation decision, the common decision, the control feeling of the individual decision-making is less than the control experience of the rotation decision and the common decision, and the control sense of the rotation decision and the common decision is not different. The joy of individual decision making is less than the common decision making. However, there is no significant difference in the joy of individual decision making and decision making, and there is no significant difference in the joy of the decision making and the common decision. The regret of individual decision is higher than that of the common decision, but the regret of the individual decision and the regrets of the decision making, the regrets of the rotation decision and the regrets of the common decision. There is no significant difference in feeling. Next, the total score group is sought according to the feeling. In the low low combination, the risk preference of the participants in the rotation decision is the lowest and the highest income. Although the risk preference of the common decision is not significantly lower than the individual decision, the average value is still lower than the individual and the income is higher than that of the individual. The risk preference of the subjects is in personal decision making, rotation decision, and common decision model. The profit of the rotation decision and the common decision is higher than that of the individual decision. The risk preference of the high sensation seeking is higher than the decision making in the individual decision; the profit of the rotation decision and the common decision is higher than that of the individual decision. Two high senses seek the total. In the combination, the risk preference of individual decision and common decision is higher than that of rotation decision. The profit of rotation decision and common decision is higher than that of individual decision. In the combination of lust score, two low indulgence desire combination, personal decision making, rotation decision, and common decision risk preference are not different. In the individual decision income, the individual decision, the rotation decision, and the risk preference of the common decision are not different in the one high and low two lust group. The common decision is higher than the income of the rotation decision. The rotation decision is higher than the individual decision income. The high feeling seeking individual decision risk preference is higher than the rotation decision; the common decision income is higher than that of the individual decision. Individual decision and rotation decision income. In the two high indulgent desire group, the individual decision risk preference of the subjects is higher than the common decision making, the common decision is higher than the rotation decision; the common decision making, the rotation decision income is higher than the individual decision income. According to the risk and risk grouping, the two low risk and risk combination, the individual decision, the rotation decision, the total decision, The risk preference of the same decision is not different, and the rotation decision is higher than the individual decision income. The low score group has no difference in the risk preference of the individual decision, the rotation decision and the common decision in the combination of the one high and the low risk and the risk score, and the rotation decision, the profit of the joint decision is higher than that of the individual decision. The combination of two dangerous and risky subjects is one high and one lower. The individual decision risk preference of the high grade subjects is higher than that of the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision income. In the two high risk and risk subjects combination, the individual decision and the common decision risk preference of the subjects are higher than the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision-making returns. In the lonely group, in the group of two low and lonely subjects, the individual decision, rotation decision, and the risk preference of the common decision have no significant difference; the common decision and the rotation decision benefit are higher than the individual decision income. The individual decision risk preference of the low score two subjects is higher than the rotation decision; The income of policy and rotation decision is higher than that of individual decision. One high and one low two non lonely trial combination, the individual decision risk preference of high score subjects is higher than that of the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision income. In the two highly unwilling subjects, the individual decision risk preference of the subjects is higher than the rotation decision. The benefit of the common decision is higher than the individual decision income. The risk preference of the participants in the two low experience seeking group is no significant difference according to the experience seeking group. Policy risk preference, rotation decision-making, and common decision earnings are higher than individual decision-making returns. In the one high and low experience seeking group, the risk of high score trial rotation decision is lower than individual decision risk preference; rotation decision and common decision income are higher than individual decision gains. In the two high experience seeking group, the subjects take turns. The risk of decision making is lower than that of individual decision risk preference; rotation decision and common decision income are higher than individual decision-making returns. In general, rotation decision and common decision are superior to individual decision making. Combination of low and low portfolio, low portfolio risk preference is lower than high combination. Low combination, low high combination income is lower than high combination. According to risk and risk score group, low combination, low high combination, high combination risk preference and income are not different. Low, low, high portfolio income is less than high portfolio income. According to the experience of grouping, low portfolio, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference and income are not different. Group, low combination, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference. Low combination income is significantly lower than high combination. Low combination of low and low combination, low portfolio risk preference is significantly lower than high combination. Low low combination income is significantly lower than low high combination. There are no significant differences in combination, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference and income. There is no significant difference in risk preference and income of low and low combination, low high combination and high combination in common decision making. Finally, in the field of EEG research, the difference between "storage" and individual "deposit" (ASS-ISS) and the P30 of rotation active decision and rotation passive decision making The 0 difference (AAP-APP) is positive. The correlation between the common "storage" and the individual "JS-IS" and the FRN difference (JAF-JPF) of the common active decision and the common passive decision is significant. The difference between the common "explosion" and the individual "JPS-IPS" (JPS-IPS) is significantly on the edge of the P300 difference (JAP-JPP) of the common active decision and the common passive decision. The FRN difference value (AAF-APF) and the rotation control sense and the personal control sense difference are positive correlation between the active decision and the rotation passive decision. The P300 difference value (AAP-IAP) and the rotation control sense and the personal control sense difference are positive correlation between the active decision and the individual active decision, and the FRN difference value (AAF-IAF) and the wheel of the active decision and the individual initiative decision (AAF-IAF) are respectively and round. The difference between sense of control and personal control, rotation of regret and personal regret are positively correlated. The FRN difference (APF-IAF) and the difference value of rotation achievement and individual achievement are positively related to the difference value of individual achievement feeling and the difference value of P300 (JAP-JPP), common control sense and personal control sense of common active decision and common passive decision Positive correlation. The FRN difference (JAF-JPF) and common regrets are positively related to the difference of personal regret. The FRN difference (JPF-IPF) and the difference of common regret and personal regret are positively correlated with the difference between the common passive decision and the individual initiative decision. The difference of the P300 difference between the common active decision and the common passive decision is the difference between the common active decision and the common passive decision. Value (JAP-JPP) and common achievement sense and personal achievement sense difference correlation edge significant. Rotation active decision and individual active decision P300 difference value (AAP-IAP) and risk and Adventure (TAS) positive correlation. Common active decision and common passive decision FRN difference value (JAF-JPF) and search for experience (ES) edge negative correlation. Common active decision and The common passive P300 difference value (AAP-APP) and the edge of BS (BS) are negatively correlated. Therefore, in the organization structure of the company, we propose to adopt the framework of two decision-makers in general. But we should consider the differences and combinations of the personality traits of the two decision-makers. This new point mainly includes research purposes, research content, and research methods. Three aspects of innovation. Combined with the study of rotation in other disciplines, this study first defines and studies rotation decision-making. Through the comparison of individual decision-making and group decision making, this study is the first to make a systematic study of two people's decision-making. Emotion is a factor in the dual system theory of decision making, and the previous research is also limited to one. In the study of human decision-making, this study first studied the emotional experience in the rotation decision and the common decision, and the difference with the personal decision emotional experience. The effect of different personality trait combinations on risk preference and income is the first time to apply the psychological risk simulation task BART to the study of management. At the same time, the interdisciplinary study is realized by combining behavior experiments and scales. This study is the first time to study the ERP electroencephalogram experiment. This study provides a scientific basis for personal decision making, risk preference, emotional experience and personality traits in individual decision making.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京郵電大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：B848;F272.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮燕;;“拉斯巴”制度的新生——嘉絨藏區(qū)村組治理的案例研究[J];學(xué)海;2016年05期

2 潘煜;徐四華;方卓;范靜;高麗;方漢明;饒恒毅;;金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策中的主被動(dòng)選擇偏好研究——從情感體驗(yàn)的視角[J];管理科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年09期

3 何駑;;良渚文化的社會(huì)政治特征探析[J];東南文化;2016年04期

4 葉銳;;水權(quán)交易市場(chǎng)中的輪流出價(jià)博弈問題研究[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2016年07期

5 方繪龍;葛玉輝;;基于團(tuán)隊(duì)效能感的團(tuán)隊(duì)互動(dòng)對(duì)TMT戰(zhàn)略決策速度的影響研究[J];物流工程與管理;2016年06期

6 俞國(guó)良;羅曉路;;卡特爾:人格理論和十六種人格因素量表(16PF)的應(yīng)用[J];中小學(xué)心理健康教育;2016年11期

7 榮鵬飛;蘇勇;張嵐;;團(tuán)隊(duì)氛圍、董事會(huì)內(nèi)部溝通與戰(zhàn)略績(jī)效[J];工業(yè)技術(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì);2016年01期

8 張蕾;;人格二因素、三因素及大五因素理論之比較[J];才智;2015年14期

9 束義明;郝振省;;高管團(tuán)隊(duì)溝通對(duì)決策績(jī)效的影響:環(huán)境動(dòng)態(tài)性的調(diào)節(jié)作用[J];科學(xué)學(xué)與科學(xué)技術(shù)管理;2015年04期

10 郭小聰;代凱;;政府對(duì)公眾參與的策略選擇——一個(gè)“輪流出價(jià)博弈”的分析框架[J];中國(guó)人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 肖慧琳;李衛(wèi)鋒;;在不確定環(huán)境下的高管決策的情緒調(diào)節(jié)機(jī)制—基于準(zhǔn)實(shí)驗(yàn)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的研究[A];第六屆（2011）中國(guó)管理學(xué)年會(huì)——組織行為與人力資源管理分會(huì)場(chǎng)論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王學(xué)軍;群體決策中若干問題的理論與方法研究[D];東北大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 楊志偉;卡特爾人格因素問卷（中文智評(píng)版）的修訂及檢驗(yàn)[D];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2015年

2 孫輝;多人輪流操作與單人獨(dú)立操作輸尿管軟鏡碎石術(shù)的隨機(jī)對(duì)照研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2015年

3 王娜;韓國(guó)輪流主導(dǎo)式漢語課堂教學(xué)案例分析[D];遼寧大學(xué);2014年

4 王玉潔;沖動(dòng)性對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策影響的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[D];廣州大學(xué);2013年

5 王秋紅;影響個(gè)體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策因素的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2003223