Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2019, Vol. 27 Issue (5): 789-795    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00789
  研究简报 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
负期望条件下的末期效应:情绪动机诱发风险寻求
孟彧琦,邢采(),刘新辉
中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
The ending effect of negative-expected value gambles: Emotional motivation induces risk taking
MENG Yuqi,XING Cai(),LIU Xinhui
Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
全文: PDF(648 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

风险决策中, 末期效应指“个体在重复多轮决策任务的末尾冒险倾向升高”的现象, 但其内在机制尚不明确。三个研究的结果发现, 在实验室环境和自然环境下, 不同期望(负期望值和等期望值)条件下被试在最后一轮的投资均会显著增加, 末期效应稳定出现, 且不受到最后一轮决策前被试所拥有的代币数量的影响。即, 就算在风险选项收益更小的情况下, 被试也会倾向于在最后一轮选择高风险选项, 且这一效应是参照点独立的, 这说明末期效应的出现是源于对情绪满足感的追求。未来研究可从这一点切入, 进一步研究情绪影响风险决策过程的机制。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
孟彧琦
邢采
刘新辉
关键词 末期效应风险决策参照独立社会情绪选择理论情绪动机    
Abstract

The ending effect of risky decision-making refers to the phenomenon that individuals would be more likely to take risks when a multiple-played decision-making task comes to an end. Three experiments examined the ending effect with risky decision tasks of different expected values, both in laboratory settings and in natural environment. The results showed that, the ending effect appeared in both laboratories and natural settings. Participants showed increased risk taking in the last round in both equal-expected value gambles and negative-expected value gambles. In addition, the ending effect is not moderated by the amount of tokens participants had before the last round. It appears that the ending effect is driven by the motivational need for an emotionally rewarding ending and suggests that the ending effect is reference independent. Future research on the underlying mechanism of the ending effect may benefit by focusing on affective system since it plays an important role in the ending effect.

Key wordsending effect    risky decision-making    reference independent    socioemotional selectivity theory    emotional motivation
收稿日期: 2018-07-09      出版日期: 2019-03-20
PACS:  B849: C91  
基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金面上项目资助(71873133)
通讯作者: 邢采     E-mail: cxing@ruc.edu.cn
引用本文:   
孟彧琦,邢采,刘新辉. (2019). 负期望条件下的末期效应:情绪动机诱发风险寻求. 心理科学进展, 27(5), 789-795.
MENG Yuqi,XING Cai,LIU Xinhui. (2019). The ending effect of negative-expected value gambles: Emotional motivation induces risk taking. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(5), 789-795.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00789      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2019/V27/I5/789
[1] 任桂花 . ( 2000). “59岁现象”背后的经济学机理. 管理现代化, ( 3), 18-19.
[2] 郑利平 . ( 2000). 59岁现象的经济学分析. 中共中央党校学报, 4( 4), 81-85. doi: 10.14119/j.cnki.zgxb.2000.04.011
[3] Ali, M. M . ( 1977). Probability and utility estimates for racetrack bettors. Journal of Political Economy, 85( 4), 803-815. doi: 10.1086/260600
[4] Asch P., Malkiel B. G., & Quandt R. E . ( 1982). Racetrack betting and informed behavior. Journal of Financial Economics, 10( 2), 187-194. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X (82)90012-5
[5] Brand M., Labudda K., & Markowitsch H. J . ( 2006). Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Networks, 19( 8), 1266-1276.
[6] Carstensen, L. L . ( 2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312( 5782), 1913-1915.
[7] Carstensen L. L., Isaacowitz D. M., & Charles S. T . ( 1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54( 3), 165-181.
[8] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G . ( 2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41( 4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
[9] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A . ( 2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39( 2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/ BF03193146
[10] Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber E. U., & Erev I . ( 2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15( 8), 534-539.
[11] Hogarth, R. M., & Reder, M. W . ( 1986). Editors' comments: Perspectives from economics and psychology. The Journal of Business, 59( 4), S185-S207.
[12] Kelley N. J., Eastwick P. W., Harmon-Jones E., & Schmeichel B. J . ( 2015). Jealousy increased by induced relative left frontal cortical activity. Emotion, 15( 5), 550-555. doi: 10.1037/emo0000068
[13] Knight F. H. ( 1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Social Science Electronic Publishing, ( 4), 682-690.
[14] Kopelman, R. E., & Minkin, B. L . ( 1991). Toward a psychology of parimutuel behavior: Test of Gluck's Laws. Psychological Reports, 68( 2), 701-702.
[15] Mcglothlin, W. H . ( 1956). Stability of choices among uncertain alternatives. American Journal of Psychology, 69( 4), 604-615.
[16] Mckenzie C. R. M., Sher S., Müller-Trede J., Lin C., Liersch M. J., & Rawstron A. G . ( 2016). Are longshots only for losers? A new look at the last race effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29( 1), 25-36.
[17] Metzger, M. A . ( 1985). Biases in betting: An application of laboratory findings. Psychological Reports, 56( 3), 883-888. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1985.56.3.883
[18] Scholer A. A., Zou X., Fujita K., Stroessner S. J., & Higgins E. T . ( 2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99( 2), 215-231.
[19] Shiv B., Loewenstein G., Bechara A., Damasio H., & Damasio A. R . ( 2005). Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion. Psychological Science, 16( 6), 435-439.
[20] Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J . ( 1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36( 6), 643-660.
[21] Thaler, R. H., & Ziemba, W. T . ( 1988). Anomalies: Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2( 2), 161-174.
[22] Wood, S. M. W., & Bechara A. , ( 2014). The neuroscience of dual (and triple) systems in decision making The neuroscience of risky decision making. (pp. 177-202). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
[23] Xing C., Meng Y., Isaacowitz D. M., Wen Y., Lin Z . ( 2018). The ending effect in investment decisions: The motivational need for an emotionally rewarding ending. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. doi:10.1177/0146167218788829
[1] 杨群; 李煜; 孙得琳; Tatia M. C. LEE. 应激对风险和社会决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(6): 974-984.
[2] 李爱梅;谭磊;孙海龙; 熊冠星;潘集阳. 睡眠剥夺影响风险决策的双系统模型探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(5): 804-814.
[3] 黄文强;杨沙沙;于萍. 风险决策的神经机制: 基于啮齿类动物研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(11): 1767-1779.
[4] 张凤华;张玉婷;向玲;胡竹菁. 模糊决策的认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(3): 364-374.
[5] 刘扬;孙彦. 行为决策中框架效应研究新思路 —— 从风险决策到跨期决策, 从言语框架到图形框架[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(8): 1205-1217.
[6] 毕丹丹;韩布新. 积极效应研究的几个方法学问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(7): 1103-1111.
[7] 张颖;冯廷勇. 青少年风险决策的发展认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(7): 1139-1148.
[8] 谢晓非;陆静怡. 风险决策中的双参照点效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(4): 571-579.
[9] 何清华; 薛贵;陈春辉;董奇;陈传升. 遗传因素在风险决策加工中的作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(2): 191-204.
[10] 张阳阳;饶俪琳;梁竹苑;周媛;李纾. 风险决策过程验证:补偿/非补偿模型之争的新认识与新证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(2): 205-219.
[11] 敖玲敏;吕厚超;庞雪. “悲喜交加”的概念、测量及相关研究述评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(9): 1643-1650.
[12] 纪丽君;Megan Kaulius. 跨文化判断与决策[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(3): 381-388.
[13] 蔡厚德;张权;蔡琦;陈庆荣. 爱荷华博弈任务(IGT)与决策的认知神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(9): 1401-1410.
[14] 龚先旻;王大华. 老年人情绪记忆中的积极效应及其产生机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(9): 1411-1418.
[15] 王璐璐;李永娟. 心理疲劳与任务框架对风险决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(10): 1546-1550.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn