PSYCH OpenIR  > 中国科学院行为科学重点实验室
风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较:基于眼动追踪研究的证据
其他题名Process comparison of risky choice and intertemporal choice: Evidence from eye-tracking method
周蕾1,2,3; 李爱梅1; 李纾2,3; 梁竹苑2,3
2018-10
会议名称第二十一届全国心理学学术会议
通讯作者邮箱lish@psych.ac.cn ; liangzy@psych.ac.cn
会议录名称摘要集-第二十一届全国心理学学术会议
页码1261-1263
会议日期10.30-11.2
会议地点北京
产权排序2
摘要

摘要:风险决策和跨期决策与人类生存发展密切相关,且较为相似的两种重要决策。其核心相似之处在于其可能具有共同的过程机制。但是,以往多数研究多基于行为结果的证据探讨二者的相似性,尚罕见研究探索二者是否具有共同的决策过程。本文按照基于行为效应的“特殊”条件到基于等量转换的“一般”条件的研究逻辑,采用眼动追踪方法,运用贝叶斯估计、分层贝叶斯模型拟合、眼动轨迹分析等一系列新分析方法,从行为特征、局部过程特征、整体过程特征三个层面,对两类决策进行了综合的过程比较。具体来说,研究关注决策过程的两个基本特征:“补偿/非补偿性”规则和“基于维度/基于选项”加工规则。基于局部和整体过程特征,本文选取反映“补偿/非补偿性”、“基于维度/基于选项”加工决策特征的一系列决策属性和过程指标,基于这些指标对这两种决策特征进行了检验。通过比较了两类决策的加工过程是否一样,进一步检验了两类决策更符合哪种理论决策模型的假设。研究一基于“特殊”条件,以风险决策的确定效应与跨期决策的即刻效应为例,对两类决策的过程进行综合比较。研究二基于“一般”条件,首次使用概率和时间等量转换的研究范式,通过前测生成了每个被试特有的心理等量的风险和跨期决策任务参数,从定量的、去除行为效应的角度对风险和跨期决策的一般过程机制进行了比较,以克服参数特异性和个体差异对行为偏好和过程的可能影响。两个研究结果一致地发现:两类决策的主要过程特征均相似,且更符合非折扣模型假设;二者在加工复杂程度等少数特征上不同。这表明二者可能具有共同的核心决策规则:不遵循折扣模型假设的补偿性、基于选项规则,更可能采用非折扣模型预期的简捷、启发式规则。本文为建立两类决策的共同解释框架做出了有益尝试,并为决策比较研究方法提供新的方向。

其他摘要

Abstract: Risky choice (RC) and intertemporal choice (IC) are common decisions we make in daily life, and these decisions are vital to the development of human beings. The core similarity of the two is that they might involve similar process mechanisms. However, the previous research was based on evidence from outcome data and research that explore whether the two have a shared decision process are rare. In this paper, in order to examine whether RC and IC involve similar decision process, by using the logic from “special” (based on effect) to “general” (based on equivalence conversion), we utilized the eye tracking method to compare the underlying process in RC and IC. We adopted a series of new analytical methods, such as hierarchical Bayesian model fitting, Bayesian estimation, and scanpath analysis to compare behavioral characteristics, local process characteristics and holistic process characteristics of the two types of decisions. In detail, we focused on two decision factors: compensatory/non-compensatory rule, alternative based/attribute based rule. Based on the local and holistic process characteristics, we select a series of decision attributes that reflect the compensatory/non-compensatory rule, alternative based/attribute based rule, and use the eye-tracking indexes to test these decision attributes. By comparing the decision process the two, we futher determine which models are more suitable for these two decisions.

In study 1, considering the similar behavioral effects of RC and IC, we compared the process mechanisms of the special behavioral effects of RC and IC from a qualitive perspective. In this study, we compared the certainty effect of RC and the immediacy effect of IC. We found that although RC and IC differed in some process characteristics, such as complexity and holistic dynamic eye movement pattern, they are similar in other characteristics. In addition, except for local processing direction, other characteristics we examined suggested that the two types of decision are consistent with the assumptions of a non-discounting models, and their information processing were more likely to follow the non-compensatory, attribute-based rule.

In study 2, to overcome the disadvantages of the previous studies, which failed to control the confounding for results from parameter specificity and individual differences, we established a paradigm of probability and delay equivalence conversion to set “equivalent RC and IC options pairs,” and we compared the process mechanisms of the two in “general condition” from a quantitative perspective. We found that based on equivalence conversion, RC and IC showed different behavioral characteristics. However, they were similar in terms of information processing, expectation for complexity, and holistic dynamic eye movement pattern. In addition, except for local processing direction, the other characteristics we examined suggested that the two types of decisions are consistent with the assumptions of a non-discounting model, and their information processing were more likely to follow a non-compensatory, attribute-based rule.

All of the studies presented in this paper showed that although differences exist between RC and IC in the details of few decision processes, such as in terms of complexity and holistic and dynamic eye movement pattern. However, at the core of the decision rule, RC and IC share cognitive mechanisms: In these two types of decisions, contrary to classical discounting models, people do not follow a compensatory, dimension-based rules and undergo a “weighting and summing” or “delay discounting” process to make a decision. However, they are likely to use simple heuristic rules that are expected by non-discounting models. This study provides a theoretical basis for the establishment of a common interpretation framework for RC and IC, as well as opens a new direction for the research methods and analytical methods for comparative research on different decision tasks.

关键词风险决策 跨期决策 过程比较 等量转换 分层贝叶斯模型拟合
语种中文
文献类型会议论文
条目标识符http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/27345
专题中国科学院行为科学重点实验室
作者单位1.暨南大学管理学院
2.中国科学院大学心理学系
3.中国科学院行为科学重点实验室(中国科学院心理研究所)
第一作者单位中国科学院行为科学重点实验室
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
周蕾,李爱梅,李纾,等. 风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较:基于眼动追踪研究的证据[C],2018:1261-1263.
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[周蕾]的文章
[李爱梅]的文章
[李纾]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[周蕾]的文章
[李爱梅]的文章
[李纾]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[周蕾]的文章
[李爱梅]的文章
[李纾]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。