Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下小鼠的逃生决策比较
李虹;高阳
(清华大学心理学系, 北京 100084)
Escape Decision-Making under Real Fire and Simulated Fire Conditions
LI Hong;GAO Yang
(Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China)
全文: PDF(398 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

探讨并比较真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下小鼠是否采用直觉性逃生决策。研究包括一个预备训练和两个主实验。预备训练的目的:首先训练小鼠获得有关迷宫路线及出口的经验, 然后再经过遗忘处理使它们遗忘相关经验。两个主实验均采用3(情境:真实火灾, 模拟火灾, 普通情境)×2(记忆:遗忘前和遗忘后)混合实验设计, 因变量均为逃生决策。实验组被试为72只经过训练的小鼠, 控制组为24只未经过训练的小鼠。通过考察小鼠在不同情境和不同记忆条件下的逃生时间和对逃生出口的选择探测并比较真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下小鼠的逃生决策差异。主要结果:(1)实验组在真实火灾情境下的逃生时间无论遗忘前后都明显比模拟火灾情境下短; (2)实验组在真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下的逃生时间都明显比控制组短; (3)当熟悉和陌生出口均开启同时熟悉出口处有烟雾条件下, 真实火灾组在遗忘前后均倾向于选择熟悉出口逃生, 其他两组则倾向于选择陌生出口离开。结论:真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下小鼠的逃生决策存在明显差异:真实火灾情境下受过训练的小鼠倾向于直觉性逃生决策; 模拟火灾情境下受过训练的小鼠不倾向于直觉性逃生决策。

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
李虹
高阳
关键词 真实火灾模拟火灾逃生决策直觉记忆    
Abstract

The present research aims to explore the effects of condition and memory on escape decision-making. Based on Sayegh et al.’s (2004) intuitive decision-making model and other related research findings, we assume that previous learning and the related memory would influence escape decision-making under crisis condition, and escape decision-making would be different under real fire and simulated fire conditions. We conducted a preliminary training and two main studies to test our hypothesis. We recruited mice rather than human-beings as participants, because it is dangerous to examine human reactions in real fire conditions. Previous research suggested that rodents show similar stressful reactions as humans when encountering crisis (Davis & Whalen, 2000; Lang et al., 2000). Moreover, rodents share almost the same escape behaviors with humans under crisis (Parr & Gothard, 2007). We used a 3 (condition: real fire, simulated fire, common) × 2 (memory: remembered and forgotten) mixed design, and tested a total of 96 mice in the study. Among them, 72 received the preliminary training and 24 served as the control group which did not receive the training. Each of the two main studies included 24 mice, and the remaining 24 mice received the forgetting treatment. The 24 mice in each study were randomly and equally arranged into the three conditions (real fire, simulated fire and common), and the 24 mice of the control group are also arranged into such three conditions. The dependent variables for the two main studies are escape time and exit choices. Escape time is used because time or speed is the key in defining intuition and in distinguishing between intuitive and analytical decision-making (Bargh, 1994; Betsch, 2008; Sadler-Smith, 2008). While exit choice is treated as another indicator because finding an exit is crucial for escape decisions (Altshuler et al., 2005; Helbing et al., 2000). Choosing the familiar exit shows the effect of learning and memory. In study one, escape time was examined when only the familiar exit is available (exit1 or 2). If escape time of the experimental groups after training was not significantly different from the memory baseline or even shorter, it would suggest the automatic retrieval from the memory (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), which is an essential character of associative intuition (Glockner & Witteman, 2010). If escape time of the experimental groups after forgetting was still significantly shorter than that of the control group, it could suggest that forgetting happened only at the conscious level. Retrieval from unconsciousness is no doubt an automatic retrieval process (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006). In study two, exit choices were examined when the familiar and unfamiliar exits are both available (exit 1 and 2). It is assumed that if the mice choose familiar but smoky exit rather than unfamiliar but non-smoky exit, it would suggest the effect of learning and memory. After forgetting, if the mice still tended to choose the familiar exit, it would suggest the automatic retrieval from the unconscious, and therefore it is intuitive decision-making. The main findings are: (1) Escape time before forgetting under real fire condition is significantly shorter than the memory baseline, and also significantly shorter than that under simulated fire condition. (2) Escape time of mice under the three conditions is all significantly shorter than that of the control group. (3) When both the familiar and unfamiliar exits are opened and the familiar exit is in smoke, real fire group tends to choose the familiar exit, whereas the other two groups prefer to choose the unfamiliar exit. In conclusion, there is significant difference of the decision-making under real fire and simulated fire conditions. Mice under real fire conditions tend to adopt intuitive decision-making, whereas under simulated fire condition they do not prefer intuitive decision-making.

Key wordsreal fire    simulated fire    escape decision-making    intuition    memory
收稿日期: 2013-02-19      出版日期: 2013-09-25
基金资助:

清华大学自主科研资助项目(资助号:2010TH204)。

通讯作者: 李虹   
引用本文:   
李虹;高阳. 真实火灾和模拟火灾情境下小鼠的逃生决策比较[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00993.
LI Hong;GAO Yang. Escape Decision-Making under Real Fire and Simulated Fire Conditions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(9): 993-1003.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00993      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2013/V45/I9/993
[1] 丁晓, 吕娜, 杨雅琳, 司继伟.  工作记忆成分的年龄相关差异 对算术策略运用的预测效应[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 759-770.
[2] 李腾飞, 马 楠, 胡中华, 刘 强.  空间距离对视觉工作记忆巩固的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 711-722.
[3] 李松泽;胡金生;李骋诗; 王琦;何建青;王妍; 杨翠萍. 高功能孤独症幼儿空间工作记忆的组块加工缺陷[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 631-642.
[4] 胡岑楼;张豹;黄赛. 无关长时记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择?[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 590-601.
[5] 尹华站;李丹;陈盈羽;黄希庭. 1~6秒时距认知分段性特征[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1119-1129.
[6] 陈帅; 王端旭;. 道不同不相为谋?信息相关断裂带对团队学习的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 867-879.
[7] 崔诣晨;王沛;谈晨皓. 内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(12): 1538-1550.
[8] 姜英杰; 王志伟; 郑明玲; 金雪莲. 基于价值的议程对学习时间分配影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1229-1238.
[9] 毛伟宾;赵浩远;东利云;白鹭. 提取诱发遗忘中的情绪记忆权衡效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1219-1228.
[10] 胡艳梅;张明. 基于记忆的注意捕获和注意抑制效应:ERP证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 12-21.
[11] 陈帅. 团队断裂带对团队绩效的影响:团队交互记忆系统的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 84-94.
[12] 毛新瑞;徐慧芳;郭春彦. 双加工再认提取中的情绪记忆增强效应[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1111-1123.
[13] 张豹;邵嘉莹;胡岑楼;黄赛. 工作记忆表征的激活与抑制状态对注意引导效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1089-1100.
[14] 叶晓红;陈幼贞;孟迎芳. 回想、熟悉性与启动在编码过程的认知神经机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1101-1110.
[15] 薛成波;叶超雄;张引;刘强. 视觉工作记忆中特征绑定关系的记忆机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(7): 851-858.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》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