Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2019, Vol. 51 Issue (4): 407-414    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00407
  “以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展”专栏 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
如何用行为经济学应对不确定性:拓展有效助推的范围
王晓田()
香港中文大学(深圳)人文与社会科学学院, 深圳518172)(Psychology Department, University of South Dakota, SD 57069, USA
Using behavioral economics to cope with uncertainty: Expand the scope of effective nudging
Xiao Tian WANG()
School of Humanities and Social Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518172, China)(Psychology Department, University of South Dakota, SD 57069, USA
全文: PDF(558 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

本文提出了决策中不确定性的五种类型及其行为学和心理学的应对机制:用简捷启发式替代加权求和应对信息不确定性, 用直觉应对认知不确定性, 用价值观预测选择偏好应对行为不确定性, 用决策参照点的权重替代概率应对结果不确定性, 用时间换时间以降低延迟折扣应对未来不确定性。新行为经济学应当通过“为什么”的功能性分析, 找到行为助推的心理杠杆。化解不确定性本身就是一种有效的行为助推; 化繁为简是行为助推的关键所在。

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
王晓田
关键词 行为经济学行为决策不确定性“火鸡困境”选择偏好    
Abstract

Within a framework of “libertarian paternalism”, the idea of nudge promotes the use of behavioral interventions to reduce irrational decisions that may collectively lead to “behavioral market failures” ( Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Sunstein, 2014). This approach has been criticized, however, for its lack of transparency in behavioral manipulations and for that nudging is not educating. In the current theory of nudging, whether a decision is judged as rational is largely based on a small number of neoclassic standards of expected utility theories under the assumption that all the expected consequences and their probabilities are available to the decision maker.

In this article, the author intends to expand the scope of effective nudging to include decisions under uncertainty where the probabilities associated with decision outcomes are unknown. The author explored behavioral strategies to reduce different types of uncertainty. From this perspective, reducing uncertainty is seen as an important way of behavioral nudging. A key for effective nudges is “less is more”.

Based on an analysis of the “Bertrand Russel’s Turkey”, the author exemplified how probability-based calculations fail in a real world of uncertainty. Next, the author proposed a quintuple classification of uncertainty existing in the following stages of information processing in decision making, including uncertainty in the information source, information acquisition, cognitive evaluation, choice selection, and immediate and future outcomes. The author further examined behavioral and psychological mechanisms that help reduce each type of uncertainty: Reduce information uncertainty using simple heuristics and one-reason decision making, reduce cognitive uncertainty using intuition, reduce behavioral uncertainty by understanding values of decision makers, reduce outcome uncertainty by replacing probability estimates with prioritized decision reference points, and reduce future uncertainty using time-to-time exchanges to decrease delay discounting.

Many decision biases can be better understood in terms of the inconsistency between the modern market environment and the typical human evolutionary environment where behavioral adaptations evolved. Understanding functional reasons underlying decision biases will help improve the quality of human decision making. A new behavioral economics should ask questions of why in functional analysis to find psychological leverages for behavioral nudging.

Key wordsbehavioral economics    behavioral decision making    uncertainty    the Turkey’s dilemma    choice preference
收稿日期: 2018-01-06      出版日期: 2019-02-22
中图分类号:  B849  
  C934  
  C935  
通讯作者: 王晓田     E-mail: xtwang@cuhk.edu.cn
引用本文:   
王晓田. (2019). 如何用行为经济学应对不确定性:拓展有效助推的范围. 心理学报, 51(4): 407-414.
Xiao Tian WANG. (2019). Using behavioral economics to cope with uncertainty: Expand the scope of effective nudging. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 407-414.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00407      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2019/V51/I4/407
[1] Ainslie, G . ( 2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Bargh J.A . ( 2017). Before you know it: The unconscious reasons we do what we do. New York, NY: Touchstone.
[3] Frederick S., Loewenstein G., & O'Donoghue T . ( 2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40( 2), 351-401.
[4] Gigerenzer,G. ( 2014). Risk Savvy: How to make good decisions. Penguin Books.
[5] Gigerenzer,G. ( 2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6( 3), 361-383.
pmid: 4512281
[6] Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. , (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Reviewer of Psychology, 62( 1), 451-482.
[7] Gigerenzer, G. Selten, R. (Eds.) ( 2001) . Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox Cambridge/MA: MIT Press The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
[8] Goodwin,T. ( 2012). Why we should reject ‘nudge’. Policy and Politics 32( 2), 85-92.
[9] Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber E. U., & Erev I . ( 2004). Descriptive from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15( 8), 534-539.
pmid: 15270998
[10] Knight, F. H . ( 1921). Risk, uncertainty and pro?t. New York: Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
[11] Mols F., Haslam S. A., Jetten J., & Steffens N . ( 2015). Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54( 1), 81-98.
[12] Pykett J., Jones R., Whitehead M., Huxley M., Strauss K., Gill N., … Newman J . ( 2011). Interventions in the political geography of ‘libertarian paternalism’. Political Geography, 30( 6), 301-310.
[13] Simon, H.A . ( 1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63( 2), 129-138.
[14] Simon, H. A . ( 1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41( 1), 1-19.
[15] Sunstein C. R. ( 2014). Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[ 中译本: 马冬梅译 ( 2015). 为什么助推. 北京: 中信出版社.]
[16] Thaler R. H. Sunstein, C. R.& , ( 2008) . Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[17] Wallace-Wells, B . (2010, May 11). Cass Sunstein wants to nudge us. The New York Times, Accessed 15.06.10.
[18] Wang, X. T . ( 1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31-63.
pmid: 8766389
[19] Wang,X-T. ( 2008). Risk communication and risky choice in context: Ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128( 1), 78-89.
[20] Wang, X. T. & Johnson, G. J . ( 2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141( 4), 743-756.
pmid: 22390265
[21] Wang X. T.& Lu, J. Y. , ( 2015). Wisdom of evolution and rationalities of decision making. East China Normal University Press.
[ 王晓田, 陆静怡 . (2015). 进化的智慧与决策的理性. 华东师范大学出版社.]
[22] Wang,X.T., & Wang, P. , ( 2013). Tri-reference point theory of decision making: From principles to applications. Advances in Psychological Science, 21( 8), 1331-1346.
[ 王晓田, 王鹏 . ( 2013). 决策的三参照点理论: 从原理到应用. 心理科学进展, 21( 8), 1331-1346.]
[1] 张红, 任靖远, 刘晨阳, 罗劲. 创造性产品评价中的从众效应[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 688-698.
[2] Gerd Gigerenzer,栾胜华,刘永芳. 人非理性且难教化?论支持自由家长主义的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 395-406.
[3] 何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 803-813.
[4] 李锐;田晓明;柳士顺. 仁慈领导会增加员工的亲社会性规则违背吗?[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(5): 637-652.
[5] 蒿坡;龙立荣;贺伟. 共享型领导如何影响团队产出?信息交换、激情氛围与环境不确定性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1288-1299.
[6] 杨智辉,王建平. 广泛性焦虑个体的注意偏向[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(02): 164-174.
[7] Gary ,L. ,Brase. 进化频率表征对统计推理(非)灵活性的影响:认知风格和简要提示不影响贝叶斯推理[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(03): 398-405.
[8] 韩世辉,肖峰. 影响视觉复合刺激中整体和局部性质加工的几种因素[J]. 心理学报, 1999, 31(03): 274-283.
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