|Alternative Title||Risky, intertemporal and spatial choices: Do they differ in their underlying mechanism?|
|Place of Conferral||中国科学院心理研究所|
|Keyword||风险决策 跨期决策 空间决策 共享机制 齐当别理论 眼动追踪|
In the million years of human evolution, humans have the wisdom to successfully complete “survival tasks” such as foraging, mating, protecting offspring, and finally reaching the top of the food chain. That phenomenon happens precisely because of the long process of natural selection. Our unique skill as human beings, that is, making good decisions, can essentially distinguish us from annimals. In the historical development process, three types of decisions are deemed critical to human survival and reproduction: risky, intertemporal, and spatial choices. Humans continue to make adaptive decisions similar to the above, thereby enabling human society to continue moving forward. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the mechanism of risk, intertemporal and spatial decision making that are vital to human survival and reproduction as well as its internal mechanisms. The issue of consistency has important theoretical and practical significance.
Risky, intertemporal and spatial choices are three typical decision type. Are the processes of these three decision type different or the same? Does the decision process uniformly follow compensatory or non-compensatory strategies? The long-standing debates among the theoretical camps of compensatory, option-based and non-compensatory, dimension-based decision making have not yet been unified. Although the viewpoint of emphasizing the systematic differences among the three decision domains, and emphasizing compensatory processing strategies have long been dominant, people have increasingly realized consensus of the three decision types and the shared non-compensatory decision-making strategies. However, it is challenging to systematically explore this question, a convincing answer has not been given.
Based on a large number of literature reviews and previous experiments, this paper argues that the three types of decisions may uniformly follow the non-compensatory decision-making strategy. Based on this proposition, the following scientific question is raised in this research: "Are the processes of risk, intertemporal and spatial decision making consistent? Will the three types of decisions follow a non-compensatory decision strategy?"
To answer this key scientific question, study 1 aims to answer the question of whether the processing and decision making strategy are consistent by constructing the behavioral effects shared by the three kinds of decisions and exploring the mechanism behind the behavioral effects. Study 1a found that the subproportionality effect in intertemporal and spatial choices, similar to subprobortionality in risk choice, was found. Meanwhile, the intra-dimensional difference in the non-compensatory theory can simultaneously explain the “subproportionality” effect in three decision domains. Study 1b manipulated the experimental parameters to further explore the existence of counter-example subproportionality. Results show that the manipulated intra-dimensional difference can lead to the counter-example subproportionality choice pattern, and the intra-dimensional difference judgment of the non-compensatory theory can predict the choice pattern. Results of study 1 suggest that the three types of decision domain share similar behavior effects and consistently follow non-compensatory strategies to make the final decisions.
In Study 2, the eye-tracking technique is introduced to further investigate the process consistency and strategies of the three types of decision making. The results showed that three kinds of decision at the reaction time, the mean fixation time, depth of information processing, among others, have no remarkable differences. Additionally, the Bayesian factor shows moderate evidence supporting the finding that the three choice domains remain consistent in the process index. Meanwhile, SM value results showed that the risk, intertemporal and spatial choices uniformly follow the non-compensatory strategies. Second, the selection-rejection response mode and baseline choice tasks are introduced further to explore whether the three kinds of decision domains follow the compensatory process. Results found that the baseline choice task is different from the free choice tasks. Moreover, the baseline choice task is not affected by the response mode, whereas the free choice task under the influence of response mode shows that free choice task is different from the baseline choice task.
The earliest studies on risk, intertemporal, and spatial decisions are based on one-outcome experimental parameters. However, in face of other complex decision options, the current studies remain lacking. The change from one-outcome to double-outcome is not a simple parameter increase but a qualitative leap in decision research, especially for non-compensatory theory, which cannot be represented in many dimensions. Based on this finding, study 3 extends its reach to the field of double-outcome decision making to explore whether the decision-making process of double-outcome decision remains consistent and whether the consistency strategy inherits non-compensatory decision-making strategy. The results show that the three types of double-outcome decisions have a shared decision-making mechanism in the decision- making process and consistently follow the non-compensation decision-making strategy. Meanwhile, the baseline choice task in the double-outcome experiment is also different from the free choice task. Notably, the double-outcome experiment parameters can better reflect the difference between the selection and rejection response modes.
The innovation of this research lies in obtaining procedural evidence for decision making through various methods such as eye-tracking technique, response mode. Simultaneously, it combines traditional null hypothesis testing with Bayesian factor analysis in data analysis to analyze the process of decision-making. At the time when the Bayesian factor analysis technology is becoming mature, it provides convergent evidence for the research results and timely attempt to answer the scientific question of whether risky, intertemporal and spatial choices share a common mechanism.
|黄元娜. 风险决策、跨期决策和空间决策：三者的基本机制是否不同？[D]. 中国科学院心理研究所. 中国科学院心理研究所,2020.|
|Files in This Item:|
|黄元娜-博士学位论文.pdf（6215KB）||学位论文||限制开放||CC BY-NC-SA||Application Full Text|
|Recommend this item|
|Export to Endnote|
|Similar articles in Google Scholar|
|Similar articles in Baidu academic|
|Similar articles in Bing Scholar|
Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.