中国临床心理学杂志

决策框架和调节定向对模糊规避的影响

作者：张凤华¹ 2 方侠辉¹ 刘书培¹

单位：1. 江西师范大学心理学院江西省心理与认知科学重点实验室南昌330022
2. 浙江省认知障碍评估技术研究重点实验室杭州310015

关键词：决策框架调节定向模糊规避

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2015,23(6):963-967

摘要：

目的:探讨决策框架和调节定向对模糊规避的影响。方法:采用2(调节定向:促进定向,预防定向)×2(罐子任务的决策框架:积极框架,消极框架)的两因素被试间实验设计。结果:①促进定向者在积极框架及消极框架下对模糊选项的选择没有显著性差异;预防定向者亦如此。②在积极框架下,预防定向者比促进定向者更规避模糊;在消极框架下,两者都寻求模糊。结论:决策框架在调节定向对模糊规避的影响中起调节作用。

Objective: To explore the effects of framing of options and regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion. Meth-ods: It was a two-factors between-subject design. The first independent variable is regulatory focus including promotionfocused and prevention-focused. The second independent variable is the frame of jar task including a positive frame and a negative frame. Results: The results showed that prevention-focused people were neutral to ambiguity when probabilities are framed positively or negatively. No matter what frame it is, promotion-focused people are more likely to prefer the am-biguous option to the risky option. Moreover, compared with prevention-focused individuals, promotion-focused people are more likely to prefer the ambiguous option to the risky option in a positive situation. However, in a negative situation, they both choose the former one, ratherthan the later one. Conclusion: The results verify that regulatory focus and framing of op-tions influence ambiguity aversion in an interactive way.

基金项目：

国家自然科学基金项目(31360234);江西省社会科学研究“ 十二五”规划项目(13JY09);江西省教育科学“ 十二五”(13YB026)规划项目;江西师范大学(2013年)青年成长基金项目

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 Eichberger J, Kelsey D. Ambiguity. In Anand P, Pattanaik P, Puppe C(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rational and So cial Choice(Chapter 5). Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg,2007
2 Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961, 75: 643-669
3 Curley SP, Yates JF. The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985, 36 (2): 273-287
4 Keren G, Gerritsen LEM. On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 1999, 103 (1): 149-172
5 Kahn BE, Sarin RK. Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 1988, 15(2):265-272
6 Kuhn KM. Communicating uncertainty: Framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997, 71(1): 55-83
7 Liu Hsin-Hsien. Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2011, 24 (4): 412-430
8 Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,1997, 52(12): 1280-1300
9 Florack A, Hartmann J. Regulatory focus and investment decision in small groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2007, 43(4): 626-632
10 Cheng Yin-Hui, Yen HR, Chuang Shih-Chieh, Chang Chia-Jung. Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus. Journal of Economic Psychology,2013, 39: 402-413
11 Kao DT. Framing in healthcare advertising: The moderating effects of regulatory focus and product category on advertising attitudes. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 2013,1(1): 94-108
12 Bier VM, Connell BL. Ambiguity seeking in multi-attribute decisions: Effects of optimism and message framing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1994, 7(3): 169-182
13 姚琦,乐国安,伍承聪,等. 调节定向的测量维度及其问卷的信度和效度检验. 应用心理学,2008,14(4):318-323
14 Aaker JL, Lee AY.“I”seek pleasures and“we”avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2001, 28:33-49
15 Cesario J, Grant H, Higgins ET. Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from“feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 86: 388-404
16 Evans LM, Petty RE. Self-guide framing and persuasion: Responsibly increasing message processing to ideal levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003, 29: 313-324
17 Lee AY, Aaker JL. Bring the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 86: 205-218
18 Malaviya P, Brendl CM. Do hedonic motives moderate regulatory focus motives? Evidence from the framing of persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2014, 106(1): 1-19
19 Brendl CM, Higgins ET, Lemm KM. Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995,69: 1028-1051
20 姚一婷. 调节定向理论在企业人员配置和甄选中的应用. 硕士论文. 上海大学,2011
21 Appelt KC, Milch KF, Handgraaf MJJ, Weber EU. The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making,2011, 6(3): 252-262
22 Osmont A, Cassotti M, Agogué M, et al. Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2014, 22(2): 1-6
23 Xie Xiao-Fei, Wang Xiao Tian. Risk perception and risky choice: Situational, informational and dispositional effects. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2003, 6(2): 117-132
24 Chernev A. Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 2004a, 31(3):557-565
25 Sacchi S, Stanca L. Asymmetric perception of gains versus non-losses and losses versus non-gains: The causal role of regulatory focus. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2014, 27: 48-56

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】