【摘要】：以往關(guān)于風(fēng)險決策的研究大多將每個備擇方案的結(jié)果和相應(yīng)概率以文字或圖表形式直接呈現(xiàn)給決策者。通過上述方式呈現(xiàn)的信息被研究者們稱為描述信息。但在現(xiàn)實生活中,人們并非或不僅僅依靠描述信息進行風(fēng)險決策,在很多情境中,人們利用自身經(jīng)驗對結(jié)果發(fā)生的可能性進行判斷,從而做出風(fēng)險決策,即基于經(jīng)驗信息做風(fēng)險決策。而相關(guān)研究顯示基于描述信息和基于經(jīng)驗信息做出的風(fēng)險決策是存在差異的。本文通過三個研究探討了在單獨或同時呈現(xiàn)描述、經(jīng)驗信息時,兩類信息對風(fēng)險決策的影響存在何種差異。研究一單獨呈現(xiàn)描述信息和經(jīng)驗信息,并沿用Hertwig等人使用的抽樣范式呈現(xiàn)后者。結(jié)果顯示基于描述信息的風(fēng)險決策結(jié)果符合預(yù)期理論�；诮�(jīng)驗信息的風(fēng)險決策結(jié)果與前者不同,在中高概率獲益情景中,相比于描述信息,被試在基于經(jīng)驗信息做決策時更冒險。此現(xiàn)象在群體和個體水平都得到了驗證。研究二中實驗組同時接受兩類信息,對照組僅接受其中一類信息。結(jié)果表明實驗組被試的風(fēng)險決策結(jié)果與僅接受經(jīng)驗信息組被試的風(fēng)險決策結(jié)果無顯著差異,而與僅接受描述信息組的差異顯著,被試的風(fēng)險決策結(jié)果受經(jīng)驗信息的影響更大。主觀估計概率和決策后報告的經(jīng)驗信息影響權(quán)重也都驗證了上述結(jié)論。研究三采用更真實的抽球?qū)嶒灣尸F(xiàn)經(jīng)驗信息,結(jié)果重復(fù)驗證了在同時接受兩類信息時,被試的風(fēng)險決策和主觀概率估計受經(jīng)驗信息的影響更大。此外,研究三也探究了對描述信息信任程度是否中介了兩類信息提供概率的偏離程度對風(fēng)險決策的影響。結(jié)果表明僅在經(jīng)驗信息對應(yīng)的概率高于描述信息時,對描述信息信任程度起到了中介作用,即經(jīng)驗概率高于描述概率的程度越大,被試對描述信息信任度越低,從而更偏好于選擇風(fēng)險選項。以上結(jié)論為描述-經(jīng)驗差距提供了新的證據(jù),且驗證了兩類信息同時呈現(xiàn)時,經(jīng)驗信息對人們的風(fēng)險決策和主觀概率估計影響更大,并初步探索了其中的機制。上述研究結(jié)論啟示我們應(yīng)關(guān)注經(jīng)驗信息在風(fēng)險決策中的作用。
[Abstract]:Most of the previous studies on risk decision have presented the results of each alternative scheme and the corresponding probability directly to the decision makers in the form of text or chart. The information presented in this way is referred to by researchers as descriptive information. But in real life, people do not or not rely on descriptive information to make risk decisions. In many situations, people use their own experience to judge the possibility of the outcome and make risk decisions. That is, based on empirical information to make risk decisions. Relevant studies show that there are differences in risk decisions based on descriptive information and empirical information. Through three studies, this paper discusses the difference between the two kinds of information when presenting the description and experience information separately or simultaneously, and how the two kinds of information affect the risk decision making. A separate presentation description and empirical information was studied and the latter was presented using the sampling paradigm used by Hertwig et al. The results show that the risk decision results based on descriptive information are in line with the expected theory. The result of risk decision based on empirical information is different from that of the former. In the case of medium and high probability benefit scenario, the participants are more adventurous in making decisions based on empirical information than in describing information. This phenomenon has been verified at both group and individual levels. In study 2, the experimental group received two types of information, while the control group received only one type of information. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the results of risk decision in the experimental group and those in the group receiving only empirical information, but there was a significant difference between the results of risk decision and that of the group receiving only descriptive information, and the results of the risk decision of the subjects were more affected by the information of experience. The above conclusions are verified by subjective estimation probability and the weight of empirical information reported after decision making. In the third study, the empirical information was presented by a more real pumping experiment. The results showed that the risk decision and subjective probability estimation of the subjects were more affected by the empirical information when the two types of information were accepted simultaneously. In addition, the third study also explores whether the degree of confidence in describing information mediates the influence of the deviation degree of the two types of information providing probability on risk decision-making. The results show that only when the corresponding probability of empirical information is higher than that of descriptive information, it plays an intermediary role in the degree of confidence in descriptive information, that is, the greater the degree of empirical probability is higher than the degree of description probability, the lower the trust degree of descriptive information is. Thus prefer to choose the risk option. The above conclusions provide new evidence for the descriptive-empirical gap and verify that when two types of information are presented at the same time, the empirical information has a greater impact on people's risk decision and subjective probability estimation, and the mechanism is preliminarily explored. These conclusions suggest that we should pay attention to the role of empirical information in risk decision-making.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：B848

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉建民;李海壘;張文新;;行為決策中的描述 經(jīng)驗差距:信息加工角度的解釋[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2016年10期

2 祝婧媛;何貴兵;;風(fēng)險來源與決策:背信規(guī)避現(xiàn)象及人際聯(lián)結(jié)需求的作用[J];心理學(xué)報;2016年06期

3 江程銘;李紓;;中介分析和自舉(Bootstrap)程序應(yīng)用[J];心理學(xué)探新;2015年05期

4 李愛梅;顏亮;王笑天;馬學(xué)謙;李方君;;時間壓力的雙刃效應(yīng)及其作用機制[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2015年09期

5 潘祿;錢秀瑩;;動態(tài)重復(fù)決策中先前結(jié)果對風(fēng)險偏好的影響[J];心理學(xué)報;2014年12期

6 張陽陽;饒儷琳;梁竹苑;周媛;李紓;;風(fēng)險決策過程驗證:補償/非補償模型之爭的新認識與新證據(jù)[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2014年02期

7 劉翠翠;陳彬;劉磊鑫;原獻學(xué);汪祚軍;;當(dāng)局者迷,旁觀者清? 自我-他人決策的理性差異及其機制[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2013年05期

8 趙秋荻;劉永芳;段婧;徐沙;;心理距離與決策者角色對風(fēng)險決策的影響[J];應(yīng)用心理學(xué);2013年01期

9 王璐璐;李永娟;;心理疲勞與任務(wù)框架對風(fēng)險決策的影響[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2012年10期

10 劉騰飛;徐富明;馬紅宇;馬向陽;吳修良;;行為決策研究的新取向——基于經(jīng)驗的決策[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2012年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳凡;在描述范式、經(jīng)驗范式下對風(fēng)險決策的比較研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：2234056