跨期决策中的维度差异偏好：眼动证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00612

心理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (4): 612-625.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00612

跨期决策中的维度差异偏好：眼动证据

刘洪志⁴^,⁵, 杨钘兰⁴, 李秋月⁴, 魏子晗¹^,²^,³()

¹天津师范大学心理学部, 天津 300387
²教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300387
³学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室, 天津 300387
⁴南开大学周恩来政府管理学院社会心理学系, 天津 300350
⁵南开大学经济行为与政策模拟实验室, 天津 300071

收稿日期:2022-01-18 发布日期:2022-12-30 出版日期:2023-04-25
通讯作者: 魏子晗 E-mail:weizihan@tjnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(71901126);国家自然科学基金项目(72001158);教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目(19YJC190013);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(63222045)

Preference of dimension-based difference in intertemporal choice: Eye-tracking evidence

LIU Hong-Zhi⁴^,⁵, YANG Xing-Lan⁴, LI Qiu-Yue⁴, WEI Zi-Han¹^,²^,³()

¹Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China
²Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China
³Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387, China
⁴Department of Social Psychology, Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
⁵Laboratory of Behavioral Economics and Policy Simulation, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China

Received:2022-01-18 Online:2022-12-30 Published:2023-04-25
Contact: WEI Zi-Han E-mail:weizihan@tjnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在跨期决策研究领域, 虽然基于维度的跨期模型得到了一些源自结果检验和过程检验的证据支持, 但此类模型所假设的维度间差异比较的心理过程尚缺乏直接的过程证据。本研究通过两个眼动实验, 系统考察了相关眼动指标对维度差异偏好的预测效应。结果发现, 根据基于维度的权衡模型可有效拟合出个体在跨期决策中的维度差异偏好, 并且反应时、眼跳注视熵和静态注视熵等指标均与维度差异偏好负相关, 而基于维度的注意分配与维度差异判断正相关。这些研究发现支持了本研究所提出的跨期眼动模型的相关假设, 证实了维度差异偏好与跨期决策的认知加工过程之间的联系, 为基于维度的跨期模型提供了更直接的过程证据, 并为今后跨期决策的眼动模型发展指明了新方向。

关键词: 跨期决策, 基于维度的跨期模型, 维度差异偏好, 眼动追踪技术

Abstract:

Intertemporal choice is an important and ubiquitous concept that refers to decisions involving tradeoffs among outcomes at different points of time. It is not only a unique feature of human behavior but also relevant to policymaking and national welfare. Dimension-based models, such as tradeoff model, equate-to-differentiate theory, and similarity model, assume that individuals tend to compare the difference between dimensions of delay and outcome before deciding on a single dimension when choosing between a smaller-sooner option and a larger-later one. Considerable empirical evidence from behavioral and process data supports the use of dimension-based models. The existing dimension-based models provide qualitative explanations for an individual’s intertemporal choice and focus on “which dimension is the greater difference dimension”, but ignore the preference of dimension-based difference (i.e., “how much different of the difference between the two dimensions”). In the present study, we used eye-tracking technology to examine the relationship between the preference of dimension-based difference, which is estimated by the tradeoff model, and the information searching process, which is reflected by eye-tracking measures.

Two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses. A total of 75 college students (61 females; mean age=20.9 ± 2.4 years) participated in Experiment 1. Participants were told to complete two tasks. In the intertemporal choice task, participants chose their preferred option between the two intertemporal options, and their eye movements were recorded in the task. In the analogue scale task, participants were asked to indicate their subjective dimension-based difference judgment by using numbers 1~7. In Experiment 2, we recruited 59 college students (33 females; mean age=21.9 ± 2.1 years) to participate in the experiment. The tasks and procedures were similar to Experiment 1 except that the participants were asked to repeat the intertemporal choice task twice.

The results indicated that preference of dimension-based difference (PDD), which is estimated by the tradeoff model, correlated with the subjective dimension-based difference judgment measured by the analogue scale task (Experiment 1) and could negatively predict the choice reversals (Experiment 2). These findings proved the validity of the estimation of PDD. The results in the two experiments consistently revealed that decision time, gaze transition entropy (a measure of visual scanning efficiency), and stationary gaze entropy (a measure of the level of even distribution across different areas of interest) could negatively predict the PDD, indicating that the information searching process during intertemporal choice could reflect the preference of dimension-based difference. We also found that the outcome gaze proportion (a measure of attention allocation) could predict the dimension-based difference judgment, which is consistent with previous research.

Our findings proved the validity of the estimation method of PDD, which could quantitatively estimate the PDD when making an intertemporal choice based on their choices without extra inquiry. The current research highlighted the correlation between the preference of dimension-based difference and the information searching process, providing further process evidence for dimension-based intertemporal models. Future studies that focus on developing intertemporal models involving eye movements should consider replicating the pattern between PDD and eye-tracking measures as revealed in the present study when running data simulations. Our findings also suggest that compared to the determinant models, the probabilistic models can better describe an individual’s intertemporal choice, thereby highlighting the direction of the development of intertemporal models.

Key words: intertemporal choice, dimension-based intertemporal models, preference of dimension-based difference, eye-tracking technique

中图分类号:

B849: C91

刘洪志, 杨钘兰, 李秋月, 魏子晗. (2023). 跨期决策中的维度差异偏好：眼动证据. 心理学报, 55(4), 612-625.

LIU Hong-Zhi, YANG Xing-Lan, LI Qiu-Yue, WEI Zi-Han. (2023). Preference of dimension-based difference in intertemporal choice: Eye-tracking evidence. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(4), 612-625.

图/表 6

图1 实验1流程图

图2 实验1中(a)模拟天平分数对跨期选择的预测效应, (b) DDJ分数与模拟天平分数的关系以及(c) PDD分数与天平判断强度的关系。注: 误差线为95%置信区间。

图3 实验1中 (a)选择反应时与PDD分数的关系, (b)天平反应时与PDD分数的关系, (c)眼跳注视熵与PDD分数的关系, (d)静态注视熵与PDD分数的关系, (e)结果维度注视比例与DDJ分数的关系。注: 红线为回归拟合线, 误差线为95%置信区间。

图4 实验2中(a) 模拟天平分数对跨期选择的预测效应, (b) DDJ分数与模拟天平分数的关系以及(c) PDD分数与天平判断强度的关系。注: 误差线为95%置信区间。

图5 实验2中(a) 天平判断强度和(b) 维度差异偏好(PDD分数)对选择反转的预测效应。误差线表示95%置信区间。

图6 实验2中(a) 选择反应时与PDD分数的关系, (b) 天平反应时与PDD分数的关系, (c) 眼跳注视熵与PDD分数的关系, (d) 静态注视熵与PDD分数的关系, (e) 结果维度注视比例与DDJ分数的关系。注: 红线为回归拟合线, 误差线为95%置信区间。

参考文献 59

[1]	Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463-496. doi: 10.1037/h0076860 pmid: 1099599
[2]	Alós-Ferrer, C., & Garagnani, M. (2021). Choice consistency and strength of preference. Economics Letters, 198, 109672. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109672 URL
[3]	Amasino, D. R., Sullivan, N. J., Kranton, R. E., & Huettel, S. A. (2019). Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(4), 383-392. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0537-2 pmid: 30971787
[4]	Arieli, A., Ben-Ami, Y., & Rubinstein, A. (2011). Tracking decision makers under uncertainty. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 68-76. doi: 10.1257/mic.3.4.68 URL
[5]	Ashby, N. J. S., Yechiam, E., & Ben-Eliezer, D. (2018). The consistency of visual attention to losses and loss sensitivity across valuation and choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1791-1809. doi: 10.1037/xge0000524 URL
[6]	Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed- effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 URL
[7]	Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.1-9. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
[8]	Brandstätter, E., & Körner, C. (2014). Attention in risky choice. Acta Psychologica, 152, 166-176. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.08.008 pmid: 25226548
[9]	Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), Article 9.
[10]	Cheng, J., & González-Vallejo, C. (2016). Attribute-wise vs. alternative-wise mechanism in intertemporal choice: Testing the proportional difference, trade-off, and hyperbolic models. Decision, 3(3), 190-215. doi: 10.1037/dec0000046 URL
[11]	Cuve, H. C., Castiello, S., Shiferaw, B., Ichijo, E., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2021). Alexithymia explains atypical spatiotemporal dynamics of eye gaze in autism. Cognition, 212, 104710. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104710 URL
[12]	Dai, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1489-1514. doi: 10.1037/a0035976 URL
[13]	Dai, J., Pleskac, T. J., & Pachur, T. (2018). Dynamic cognitive models of intertemporal choice. Cognitive Psychology, 104, 29-56. doi: S0010-0285(17)30211-6 pmid: 29587183
[14]	de Martino, B., Fleming, S. M., Garrett, N., & Dolan, R. J. (2013). Confidence in value-based choice. Nature Neuroscience, 16(1), 105-110. doi: 10.1038/nn.3279 pmid: 23222911
[15]	Diederich, A. (2003). MDFT account of decision making under time pressure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 157-166. doi: 10.3758/BF03196480 URL
[16]	di Stasi, L. L., Diaz-Piedra, C., Rieiro, H., Sanchez Carrion, J. M., Martin Berrido, M., Olivares, G., & Catena, A. (2016). Gaze entropy reflects surgical task load. Surgical Endoscopy, 30(11), 5034-5043. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4851-8 URL
[17]	Ericson, K. M. M., White, J. M., Laibson, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2015). Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does. Psychological Science, 26(6), 826-833. doi: 10.1177/0956797615572232 pmid: 25911124
[18]	Fisher, G. (2021). Intertemporal choices are causally influenced by fluctuations in visual attention. Management Science, 67(8), 4961-4981. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3732 URL
[19]	Franco-Watkins, A. M., Mattson, R. E., & Jackson, M. D. (2016). Now or later? Attentional processing and intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(2-3), 206-217. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v29.2-3 URL
[20]	Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. doi: 10.1257/jel.40.2.351 URL
[21]	Gluth, S., Kern, N., Kortmann, M., & Vitali, C. L. (2020). Value-based attention but not divisive normalization influences decisions with multiple alternatives. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 634-645. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0822-0 pmid: 32015490
[22]	He, G., Chen, H., Lin, J. (2009). Psychological mechanisms for anomolies in intertemporal choice. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 15(4), 298-305.
	[何贵兵, 陈海贤, 林静. (2009). 跨期选择中的反常现象及其心理机制. 应用心理学, 15(4), 298-305.]
[23]	Jiang, C. M., Liu, H. Z., Cai, X. H., & Li, S. (2016). A process test of priority models of intertemporal choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(1), 59-72. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00059 URL
	[江程铭, 刘洪志, 蔡晓红, 李纾. (2016). 跨期选择单维占优模型的过程检验. 心理学报, 48(1), 59-72.]
[24]	Jiang, Y., Jiang, C., Hu, T., & Sun, H. (2022). Effects of emotion on intertemporal decision-making: Explanation from the single dimension priority model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(2), 122-140. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00122 URL
	[蒋元萍, 江程铭, 胡天翊, 孙红月. (2022). 情绪对跨期决策的影响: 来自单维占优模型的解释. 心理学报, 54(2), 122-140.]
[25]	Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54-69. doi: 10.1037/a0028347 pmid: 22612667
[26]	Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited:Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
[27]	Konovalov, A., & Krajbich, I. (2019). Revealed strength of preference: Inference from response times. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(4), 381-394.
[28]	Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292-1298. doi: 10.1038/nn.2635 pmid: 20835253
[29]	Krajbich, I., Lu, D., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 193. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00193 pmid: 22707945
[30]	Krajbich, I., & Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13852-13857. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101328108 URL
[31]	Krejtz, K., Szmidt, T., Duchowski, A. T., & Krejtz, I. (2014). Entropy-based statistical analysis of eye movement transitions. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (pp. 159-166). 10.1145/2578153.2578176
[32]	Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.
[33]	Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-478. doi: 10.1162/003355397555253 URL
[34]	Leland, J. W. (2002). Similarity judgments and anomalies in intertemporal choice. Economic Inquiry, 40(4), 574-581. doi: 10.1093/ei/40.4.574 URL
[35]	Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20, 147-163. doi: 10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7 URL
[36]	Li, S. (2016). An equate-to-differentiate way of decision-making. Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press.
[37]	Liang, Z. Y., & Liu, H. (2011). Exploring the nature of intertemporal choice. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(7), 959-966.
	[梁竹苑, 刘欢. (2011). 跨期选择的性质探索. 心理科学进展, 19(7), 959-966.]
[38]	Liu, H. Z., Jiang, C. M., Rao, L. L., & Li, S. (2015). Discounting or priority: Which rule dominates the intertemporal choice process? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 522-532. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00522 URL
	[刘洪志, 江程铭, 饶俪琳, 李纾. (2015). “时间折扣”还是“单维占优”?——跨期决策的心理机制. 心理学报, 47(4), 522-532.]
[39]	Liu, H. Z., Lyu, X. K., Wei, Z. H., Mo, W. L., Luo, J. R., & Su, X. Y. (2021). Exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze to bias intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 419-431. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v34.3 URL
[40]	Liu, H. Z., Wei, Z. H., & Li, P. (2021). Influence of the manner of information presentation on risky choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 650206. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650206 URL
[41]	Liu, H. Z., Zhou, Y. B., Wei, Z. H., & Jiang, C. M. (2020). The power of last fixation: Biasing simple choices by gaze- contingent manipulation. Acta Psychologica, 208, 103106. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103106 URL
[42]	Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. doi: 10.2307/2118482 URL
[43]	Moran, R., Teodorescu, A. R., & Usher, M. (2015). Post choice information integration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 99-147. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.002 pmid: 25868113
[44]	Read, D. (2001). Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1), 5-32. doi: 10.1023/A:1011198414683 URL
[45]	Read, D., & Scholten, M. (2012). Tradeoffs between sequences: Weighing accumulated outcomes against outcome-adjusted delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1675-1688. doi: 10.1037/a0028216 URL
[46]	Reeck, C., Wall, D., & Johnson, E. J. (2017). Search predicts and changes patience in intertemporal choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(45), 11890-11895. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707040114 URL
[47]	Rodriguez, C. A., Turner, B. M., & McClure, S. M. (2014). Intertemporal choice as discounted value accumulation. PLoS One, 9(2), e90138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090138 URL
[48]	Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155-161. doi: 10.2307/2967612 URL
[49]	Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2006). Discounting by intervals: A generalized model of intertemporal choice. Management Science, 52(9), 1424-1436. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0534 URL
[50]	Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2010). The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 117(3), 925-944. doi: 10.1037/a0019619 pmid: 20658858
[51]	Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. doi: 10.1002/bltj.1948.27.issue-3 URL
[52]	Shiferaw, B., Downey, L., & Crewther, D. (2019). A review of gaze entropy as a measure of visual scanning efficiency. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 353-366. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.007 URL
[53]	Shiferaw, B. A., Downey, L. A., Westlake, J., Stevens, B., Rajaratnam, S. M. W., Berlowitz, D. J., ... Howard, M. E. (2018). Stationary gaze entropy predicts lane departure events in sleep-deprived drivers. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 2220. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20588-7 pmid: 29396509
[54]	Stewart, N., Hermens, F., & Matthews, W. J. (2015). Eye movements in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(2-3), 116-136. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1854 URL
[55]	Su, Y., Rao, L. L., Sun, H. Y., Du, X. L., Li, X., & Li, S. (2013). Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(6), 1765-1780. doi: 10.1037/a0032861 URL
[56]	Sui, X. Y., Liu, H. Z., & Rao, L. L. (2020). The timing of gaze-contingent decision prompts influences risky choice. Cognition, 195, 104077. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104077 URL
[57]	Sullivan, N. J., & Huettel, S. A. (2021). Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1698-1706. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01154-0 pmid: 34226708
[58]	Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3(6), 358-361. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x URL
[59]	Wei, Z. H., & Li, X. (2015). Decision process tracing: Evidence from eye-movement data. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(12), 2029-2041. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.02029 URL
	[魏子晗, 李兴珊. (2015). 决策过程的追踪: 基于眼动的证据. 心理科学进展, 23(12), 2029-2041.]

跨期决策中的维度差异偏好：眼动证据

Preference of dimension-based difference in intertemporal choice: Eye-tracking evidence

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 59

相关文章 14

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	蒋元萍, 江程铭, 胡天翊, 孙红月. 情绪对跨期决策的影响：来自单维占优模型的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(2): 122-140.
[2]	刘洪志, 李兴珊, 李纾, 饶俪琳. 基于期望值最大化的理论何时失效：风险决策中为自己-为所有人决策差异的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(12): 1517-1531.
[3]	宋锡妍, 程亚华, 谢周秀甜, 龚楠焰, 刘雷. 愤怒情绪对延迟折扣的影响：确定感和控制感的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(5): 456-468.
[4]	王盼盼, 何嘉梅. 情景预见对跨期决策的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(1): 38-54.
[5]	周蕾, 李爱梅, 张磊, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 风险决策和跨期决策的过程比较：以确定效应和即刻效应为例[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(3): 337-352.
[6]	王鹏, 王晓田, 高娟, 黎夏岚, 徐静. 适应性时间管理：死亡意识对时间知觉和跨期决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1341-1350.
[7]	徐岚, 陈全, 崔楠, 陆凯丽. 享受当下, 还是留待未来?——时间观对跨期决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(1): 96-105.
[8]	李爱梅, 王海侠, 孙海龙, 熊冠星, 杨韶丽. “长计远虑”的助推效应：怀孕与环境跨期决策 ^*[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 858-867.
[9]	刘扬;孙彦. 时间分解效应及其对跨期决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(4): 362-370.
[10]	刘洪志;江程铭;饶俪琳;李纾. “时间折扣”还是“单维占优”？ ——跨期决策的心理机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 522-532.
[11]	李爱梅;彭元;熊冠星. 孕妇更长计远虑？——怀孕对女性跨期决策偏好的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(11): 1360-1370.
[12]	何嘉梅,黄希庭,尹可丽,罗扬眉. 时间贴现的分段性[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(04): 474-484.
[13]	陶维东,黄希庭,张慧,凤四海,刘强,陶晓丽,谢超香,李红,孙弘进. 被试自身人手初始状态对心理旋转加工的影响：眼动研[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(01): 10-25.
[14]	王穗苹,陈烜之,杨锦绵,吴岩,王瑞明. 阅读中文时信息整合的即时性[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(05): 645-653.