风险决策的概率权重偏差：心理机制与优化策略

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00905

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

概率权重偏差指人对事件发生的主观概率估计与客观概率的差异。它影响投资、投保、医患沟通等方面。“重结果轻概率”的非补偿性策略和参照点诱发的情绪波动会引发概率权重偏差; 改变“概率”的描述形式、“结果”的情绪体验、“损益”的参照点、风险的心理距离等可调整权重偏差、优化决策。未来需深究权重偏差的适用情境、机制关联及偏差辨别等问题。

关键词: 概率权重偏差, 结果维度, 概率维度, 参照点, 情绪体验, 优化策略

Abstract:

Probability weighting bias refers to the deviation between the perceived likelihood and the objective likelihood of an event, which affects investment, insurance, doctor-patient communications, etc. The non-compensatory strategy in which people give more weight to “outcomes” than “probabilities”, and the emotional fluctuation induced by the reference point cause probability weighting bias; changing the description of “probabilities”, emotional experience of “outcomes”, reference point of “gains and losses”, and psychological distance from risk, can adjust such bias and optimize decision-making. Future studies need to further explore the issues, such as its application situations, mechanism correlations, and the identification of probability weighting bias.

Key words: probability weighting bias, outcome dimension, probability dimension, reference point, emotional experience, optimizing strategy

中图分类号:

B849:C91

孙庆洲, 邬青渊, 张静, 江程铭, 赵雷, 胡凤培. (2019). 风险决策的概率权重偏差：心理机制与优化策略. 心理科学进展 , 27(5), 905-913.

SUN Qingzhou, WU Qingyuan, ZHANG Jing, JIANG Chengming, ZHAO Lei, HU Fengpei. (2019). Probability weighting bias in risky decision making: Psychological mechanism and optimizing strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(5), 905-913.

图/表 3

参考文献 50

[1]	吉仁泽(德) 泽尔腾(德) , ( 2016). 有限理性: 适应性工具箱 (刘永芳译). 清华大学出版社. 北京.
[2]	李纾 . ( 2016). 决策心理: 齐当别之道. 华东师范大学出版社. 上海.
[3]	梁哲, 李纾, 许洁虹 . ( 2007). 预期理论权重函数π的由来, 质疑及Tversky的阐释. 经济数学, 24( 4), 331-340.
[4]	孙庆洲 . ( 2017). 社会距离对概率估计偏差的影响:情绪占优抑或认知占优?(博士学位论文). 华东师范大学. 上海.
[5]	汪祚军, 李纾 . ( 2012). 对整合模型和占优启发式模型的检验: 基于信息加工过程的眼动研究证据. 心理学报, 44( 2), 179-198.
[6]	新浪科技. ( 2018). 滴滴:2017年订单量74.3亿平均每人用滴滴打过5次车. 2018年1月8摘自
[7]	中国消费者协会. ( 2019). 2018年十大消费维权舆情热点. 2019年1月10摘自
[8]	中国新闻网. ( 2018). 女孩滴滴顺风车遇害案被告人被提起公诉案件回顾. 2018年11月17摘自
[9]	Athey S., .( 2017). Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science, 355( 6324), 483-485. doi: 10.1126/science.aal4321 URL
[10]	Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., & Hertwig R . ( 2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113( 2), 409-432. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409 URL
[11]	Brandstätter E., Kühberger A., & Schneider F . ( 2002). A cognitive-emotional account of the shape of the probability weighting function. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15( 2), 79-100. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v15:2 URL
[12]	Diederich A., & Oswald P. , ( 2016). Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 128-145. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2016.02.010 URL
[13]	Evans J. S. B. T., Handley S. J., Perham N., Over D. E., & Thompson V. A . ( 2000). Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition, 77( 3), 197-213. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00098-6 URL
[14]	Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B. J., & Ubel P. A . ( 2011). Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103( 19), 1436-1443. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr318 URL
[15]	Faro D. & Rottenstreich Y. , ( 2006). Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others’ preferences under risk. Management Science, 52( 4), 529-541. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490 URL
[16]	Fisher G. , ( 2017). An attentional drift diffusion model over binary-attribute choice. Cognition, 168, 34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.007 URL
[17]	Fox C. R., & Poldrack R. A . ( 2009). Prospect theory and the brain. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain, 145-174.
[18]	Gonzalez R. & Wu G. , ( 1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0710 URL
[19]	Hansen J. V., Jacobsen R. H., & Lau M. I . ( 2016). Willingness to pay for insurance in Denmark. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83( 1), 49-76. doi: 10.1111/jori.v83.1 URL
[20]	Hey J. D., Morone A., & Schmidt U . ( 2009). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39( 3), 213-235. doi: 10.1007/s11166-009-9081-1 URL
[21]	Kahneman D. & Tversky A. , ( 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47( 2), 267-291.
[22]	Kliger D. & Levy O. , ( 2008). Mood impacts on probability weighting functions: “Large-gamble” evidence. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37( 4), 1397-1411. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2007.08.010 URL
[23]	Lermer E., Streicher B., Sachs R., Raue M., & Frey D . ( 2015). Thinking concrete increases the perceived likelihood of risks: The effect of construal level on risk estimation. Risk Analysis, 36( 3), 623-637.
[24]	Lichtenstein S., & Slovic P. , ( 1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8 9(1), 46-55.
[25]	Li L. B., He S. H., Li S., Xu J. H., & Rao L. L . ( 2009). A closer look at the Russian roulette problem: A re-examination of the nonlinearity of the prospect theory’s decision weight π. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50( 3), 515-520. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2008.10.004 URL
[26]	Li S., . ( 1995). Is there a decision weight π? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27( 3), 263-291.
[27]	Litchfield J., & Piza C. , ( 2017). Estimating the willingness to pay for tenure security in Brazilian Favelas (working paper series). Department of Economic, University of Sussex.
[28]	McGraw A. P., Todorov A., & Kunreuther H . ( 2011). A policy maker’s dilemma: Preventing terrorism or preventing blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115( 1), 25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.004 URL
[29]	Mullett T. L., & Stewart N. , ( 2016). Implications of visual attention phenomena for models of preferential choice. Decision, 3( 4), 231-253. doi: 10.1037/dec0000049 URL
[30]	Oudhoff J. P., & Timmermans D. R . ( 2015). The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice. Medical Decision Making, 35( 4), 487-500. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15576487 URL
[31]	Pachur T., Hertwig R., & Wolkewitz R . ( 2014). The affect gap in risky choice: Affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision, 1( 1), 64-78. doi: 10.1037/dec0000006 URL
[32]	Pachur T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Murphy R. O., & Hertwig R . ( 2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147( 2), 147-169. doi: 10.1037/xge0000406 URL
[33]	Pachur T., Suter R. S., & Hertwig R . ( 2017). How the twain can meet: Prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice. Cognitive Psychology, 93, 44-73. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.01.001 URL
[34]	Pahlke J., Strasser S., & Vieider F. M . ( 2015). Responsibility effects in decision making under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51( 2), 125-146. doi: 10.1007/s11166-015-9223-6 URL
[35]	Prelec D., Seung H. S., & McCoy J . ( 2017). A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem. Nature, 541, 532-535. doi: 10.1038/nature21054 URL
[36]	Rottenstreich Y., & Hsee C. K . ( 2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12( 3), 185-190. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00334 URL
[37]	Stone E. R., Yates J. F., & Parker A. M . ( 1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3( 4), 243-256. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.243 URL
[38]	Sun Q. Z., Liu Y. F., Zhang H. R., & Lu J. Y . ( 2017). Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157( 4), 502-512. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2016.1242471 URL
[39]	Sun Q. Z., Zhang H. R., Sai L. Y., & Hu F. P . ( 2018). Self-distancing reduces probability-weighting biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 611.
[40]	Sun Q. Z., Zhang H. R., Zhang J., & Zhang X. N . ( 2018). Why can’t we accurately predict others’ decisions? Prediction discrepancy in risky decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2190. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02190 URL
[41]	Suter R. S., Pachur T., & Hertwig R . ( 2016). How affect shapes risky choice: Distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29( 4), 437-449.
[42]	Suter R. S., Pachur T., Hertwig R., Endestad T., & Biele G . ( 2015). The neural basis of risky choice with affective outcomes. PloS One, 10, e0122475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122475 URL
[43]	Trautmann S. T., & van de Kuilen G. , ( 2012). Prospect theory or construal level theory? Diminishing sensitivity vs. psychological distance in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 139( 1), 254-260. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.08.006 URL
[44]	Trope Y., & Liberman N. , ( 2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117( 2), 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 URL
[45]	Tversky A., & Kahneman D. ,( 1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5( 4), 297-323. doi: 10.1007/BF00122574 URL
[46]	Tyszka T. & Sawicki P. , ( 2011). Affective and cognitive factors influencing sensitivity to probabilistic information. Risk Analysis, 31( 11), 1832-1845. doi: 10.1111/risk.2011.31.issue-11 URL
[47]	Venkatraman V., Payne J. W., & Huettel S. A . ( 2014). An overall probability of winning heuristic for complex risky decisions: Choice and eye fixation evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125( 2), 73-87. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.003 URL
[48]	Wang Z. J., Kuang Y., Tang H. Y., Gao C., Chen A., & Chan K. Q . ( 2018). Are decisions made by group representatives more risk averse? The effect of sense of responsibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31( 3), 311-323. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v31.3 URL
[49]	Williams L. E., Stein R., & Galguera L . ( 2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40( 6), 1123-1138. doi: 10.1086/674212 URL
[50]	Zipkin D. A., Umscheid C. A., Keating N. L., Allen E., Aung K., Beyth R., .. Feldstein D. A . ( 2014). Evidence-based risk communication: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 161( 4), 270-280. doi: 10.7326/M14-0295 URL