概率估计的趋势效应及其对决策的影响机制——基于心理动量的视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.02062

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

概率是反映风险与不确定性的重要指标, 概率估计具有趋势效应, 会对决策产生影响。文章描述了概率估计趋势效应的两种表现形式, 概率估计变化的趋势性(即不同时间点概率估计变化产生的趋势作用)与单边概率估计的趋势性(即高于或低于某个概率区间范畴的上界或下界的估计表述所产生的趋势作用), 揭示了概率估计趋势效应对于个体判断、决策行为和非理性决策偏差的影响; 基于心理动量的理论视角提出了一个整合模型, 阐述了概率估计趋势效应催生心理动量体验继而引发后续决策行为的内在机理。未来的研究可进一步关注：多方信息来源主体下概率估计的趋势效应; 动态趋势效应与静态概率估计的交互作用; 风险沟通中的概率估计变化趋势。

关键词: 概率估计, 趋势效应, 心理动量, 概率变化, 单边概率, 决策

Abstract:

Probability is an important indicator reflecting risk and uncertainty. Existing research focuses on how an individual evaluates the characteristics, antecedents, and underlying mechanisms of static probability. However, in reality, probability estimation is dynamic and therefore has a trend effect, which in turn influences decision-making. This paper describes two manifestations of the trend effect of probability estimation: (1) the tendency of the revised probability estimation—namely, the increased or decreased trend effect of probability estimation changing from one time point to another; and (2) the single-bound probability—namely, the estimated expression being higher or lower than the upper or lower bound of a certain probability interval. In addition, we indicate the trend effect’s impact on an individual’s judgments, decision-making behaviors, and irrational decision deviations. Based on the theoretical perspective of psychological momentum, we propose an integrated model to explore the internal mechanism of probability estimation’s trend effect. The model reveals probability estimation’s trend effect induces psychological momentum through initial triggering of psychological momentum-related stimuli, release of the catalysis via psychological simulating of the future trend, and formation of the psychological momentum perception experience. Also it illustrates the two major components of the perception experience of psychological momentum (perceived quality and perceived velocity). Further, the model includes analyses of the three conditions affecting the generated degree of psychological momentum (strength, frequency, and continuity) and the dynamic between psychological momentum and decision-making behavior. Future research can focus on three areas. (1) Probability estimation’s trend effect when there are multiple information sources. Most existing research emphasizes unilateral information sources when the direction of probability estimation’s trend effect is relatively clear. But there are often multiple sources of information in the real world; for example, if two experts estimate the probability of a future event at the same time, more complicated situations, including the recency effect and framing effect, need further exploration. (2) The interaction between dynamic trend effect and static probability estimation. Static probability research has shown individuals often overestimate the occurrence of low probability events and underestimate the occurrence of medium and high probability events. Thus, are the trend effects of dynamic probability estimation different for the different probability risks? Further, for the interval value of extremely low probability, whether adopting the unilateral probability statement can effectively suppress the deviation of the overestimation of the small probability? (3) The trend effect of revised probability estimation in risk communication. Probability estimation’s trend effect plays an essential role in risk communication. The trend effect produced by the revised probability estimation or unilateral probability expression from the communicating party affects the other party’s understanding and judgment. Compared with those of the narrow interval, what are the characteristics of the wide probability interval communicated? Will the difference between the roles of the two communicating parties affect the probability estimation? All these issues need further exploration.

Key words: probability estimation, the trend effect, psychological momentum, revised probability, single- bound probability, decision making

中图分类号:

B849:C91

熊冠星, 叶金明, 孙海龙. (2021). 概率估计的趋势效应及其对决策的影响机制——基于心理动量的视角. 心理科学进展 , 29(11), 2062-2072.

XIONG Guanxing, YE Jinming, SUN Hailong. (2021). The trend effect of probability estimation and its influence on decision-making from the perspective of psychological momentum. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(11), 2062-2072.

图/表 1

参考文献 55

[1]	杜雪蕾, 许洁虹, 苏寅, 李纾. (2012). 用文字概率衡量不确定性: 特征和问题. 心理科学进展, 20(5), 651-661.
[2]	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.
[3]	谭成慧, 马姗姗, 朱传林, 赵源, 王炫懿, 疏德明, 刘电芝. (2020). 人际互动中的“自我-他人”区分: 多水平的探索. 心理科学进展, 28(11), 1890-1900.
[4]	谭飞, 李爱梅, 孙海龙, 侯芬. (2016). 聚焦“缺失”对当下幸福体验的影响. 心理科学进展, 24(10), 1544-1550.
[5]	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(04), 407-414.
[6]	熊冠星. (2020). 克服“束手无策”:化解不确定性的决策之道. 武汉大学出版社.
[7]	张素愚, 王修欣, 杜秀芳. (2018). 任务框架和序列趋势对趋势阻尼的影响. 心理科学, 41(1), 31-37.
[8]	Attali, Y. (2013). Perceived hotness affects behavior of basketball players and coaches. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1151-1156. doi: 10.1177/0956797612468452 pmid: 23630221
[9]	Brenner, L. A., Griffin, D. W., & Koehler, D. J. (2012). A case-based model of probability and pricing judgments: Biases in buying and selling uncertainty. Management Science, 58(1), 159-178. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1429 URL
[10]	Briki, W., & Markman, K. D. (2018). Psychological momentum: The phenomenology of goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(9), 1-14.
[11]	Briki, W., Markman, K. D., Coudevylle, G. R., Sinnapah, S., & Hue, O. (2015). Momentum sequence and environmental climate influence levels of perceived PM within a sport competition. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(3), 350-357. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1062566 URL
[12]	Briki, W., & Zoudji, B. (2019). Gaining or losing team ball possession: The dynamics of momentum perception and strategic choice in football coaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01019 URL
[13]	Caruso, E. M., van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal Doppler Effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24(4), 530-536. doi: 10.1177/0956797612458804 URL
[14]	Collins, R. N., & Mandel, D. R. (2019). Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 683-695.
[15]	Erlandsson, A., Hohle, S. M., Løhre, E., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). The rise and fall of scary numbers: The effect of perceived trends on future estimates, severity ratings, and help-allocations in a cancer context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(11), 618-633. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2018.48.issue-11 URL
[16]	Ersner-Hershfield, H., Galinsky, A. D., Kray, L. J., & King, B. G. (2010). Company, country, connections: Counterfactual origins increase organizational commitment, patriotism, and social investment. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1479-1486. doi: 10.1177/0956797610382123 pmid: 20817783
[17]	Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probability- dependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 567-593. doi: 10.1146/economics.2012.4.issue-1 URL
[18]	Ferson, S., O'Rawe, J., Antonenko, A., Siegrist, J., Mickley, J., Luhmann, C. C., ... Finkel, A. M. (2015). Natural language of uncertainty: Numeric hedge words. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 57, 19-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2014.11.003 URL
[19]	Fessel, F., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Hindsight bias, visual aids, and legal decision making: Timing is everything. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 180-193 doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00343.x URL
[20]	Gallistel, C. R., Krishan, M., Liu, Y., Miller, R., & Latham, P. E. (2014). The perception of probability. Psychological Review, 121(1), 96-123. doi: 10.1037/a0035232 pmid: 24490790
[21]	Guenther, C. L., & Kokotajlo, C. (2017). Psychological momentum and risky decision-making. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 1(2), 43-51. doi: 10.1002/jts5.2017.1.issue-2 URL
[22]	Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2015). Forecasting forecasts: The trend effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 416-428.
[23]	Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2018). More than 50% or less than 70% chance: Pragmatic implications of single-bound probability estimates. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 138-150. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v31.1 URL
[24]	Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2019). When probabilities change: Perceptions and implications of trends in uncertain climate forecasts. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 555-569. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1459801 URL
[25]	Howe, L. C., MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Socolow, R. (2019). Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 863-867. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5 URL
[26]	Hubbard, T. L. (2015). The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1081-1119. doi: 10.1037/bul0000016 URL
[27]	Hubbard, T. L. (2017a). Toward a general theory of momentum-like effects. Behavioural Processes, 141(8), 50-66. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.02.019 URL
[28]	Hubbard, T. L. (2017b). Momentum in music: Musical succession as physical motion. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(1), 14-30. doi: 10.1037/pmu0000171 URL
[29]	Hubbard, T. L. (2019). Momentum-like effects and the dynamics of perception, cognition, and action. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 2155-2170 doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01770-z URL
[30]	Hubbard, T. L. (2020). Representational gravity: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 36-55. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01660-3 URL
[31]	Isaac, M. S., & Brough, A. R. (2014). Judging a part by the size of its whole: The category size bias in probability judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 310-325. doi: 10.1086/676126 URL
[32]	Iso‐Ahola, S. E., & Dotson, C. O. (2014). Psychological momentum: Why success breeds success. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 19-33. doi: 10.1037/a0036406 URL
[33]	Jordan, J. S., Cialdella, V., Schloesser, D. S., & Bai, J. (2018). Forms of bias in cognitive science:Moving beyond perception, action, and cognition. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.). Spatial biases in perception and cognition (pp.350-365). New York: Cambridge University Press
[34]	Kappes, H. B., & Morewedge, C. K. (2016). Mental simulation as substitute for experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(7), 405-420. doi: 10.1111/spc3.v10.7 URL
[35]	Kause, A., Townsend, T., & Gaissmaier, W. (2019). Framing climate uncertainty: Frame choices reveal and influence climate change beliefs. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11(1), 199-215. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0002.1 URL
[36]	Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue. Psychological Science, 22(4), 460-463. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402515 pmid: 21415241
[37]	Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. pmid: 11316014
[38]	Løhre, E. (2018). Stronger, sooner, and more certain climate change: A link between certainty and outcome strength in revised forecasts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2531-2547. doi: 10.1177/1747021817746062 URL
[39]	Løhre, E., Sobkow, A., Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2019). Framing experts' (dis) agreements about uncertain environmental events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(5), 564-578. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v32.5 URL
[40]	Løhre, E., & Teigen, K. H. (2017). Probabilities associated with precise and vague forecasts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1014-1026. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v30.5 URL
[41]	Maglio, S. J., & Polman, E. (2014). Spatial orientation shrinks and expands psychological distance. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1345-1352. doi: 10.1177/0956797614530571 pmid: 24815609
[42]	Maglio, S. J., & Polman, E. (2016). Revising probability estimates: Why increasing likelihood means increasing impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 141-158. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000058 pmid: 27281350
[43]	Markman, K. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2007). Psychological momentum: Intuitive physics and naive beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 800-812. pmid: 17488872
[44]	Nevin, J. A. (2015). Behavioral Momentum: A Scientific Metaphor. CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing, San Bernadino.
[45]	Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Carson Marr, J. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579-1584. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473120 URL
[46]	Regenwetter, M., & Davis‐Stober, C. P. (2018). The role of independence and stationarity in probabilistic models of binary choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 100-114. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2037 pmid: 29805199
[47]	Reh, S., Tröster, C., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399-415. doi: 10.1037/apl0000281 URL
[48]	Roese, N. J., & Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking:New evidence, new Challenges, new insights. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 56). (pp. 1-79). Academic Press Inc.
[49]	Shen, L., & Hsee, C. K. (2017). Numerical nudging: Using an accelerating score to enhance performance. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1077-1086. doi: 10.1177/0956797617700497 URL
[50]	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. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v29.4 URL
[51]	Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A. M., & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). Single limit interval estimates as reference points. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(3), 383-406. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720 URL
[52]	Teigen, K. H., Løhre, E., & Hohle, S. M. (2018). The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(4), 309-321.
[53]	Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Random House.
[54]	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
[55]	Witt, J. K. (2018). Spatial biases from action. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.). Spatial biases in perception and cognition (pp.307-323). New York: Cambridge University Press.