ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (6): 994-1015.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00994

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇


黄元娜1,2, 江程铭3, 刘洪志4, 李纾2,5()   

  1. 1清华大学经济管理学院, 北京 100084
    2中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京 100049
    3浙江工业大学管理学院, 杭州 310023
    4南开大学周恩来政府管理学院社会心理学系, 天津 300350
    5浙江大学心理与行为科学系, 杭州 310028
  • 收稿日期:2022-02-13 发布日期:2023-03-06 出版日期:2023-06-25
  • 通讯作者: 李纾
  • 基金资助:

Toward a coherent understanding of risky, intertemporal, and spatial choices: Evidence from eye-tracking and subjective evaluation

HUANG Yuanna1,2, JIANG Chengming3, LIU Hongzhi4, LI Shu2,5()   

  1. 1School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    2Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    3School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
    4Department of Social Psychology, Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
    5Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China
  • Received:2022-02-13 Online:2023-03-06 Published:2023-06-25


如何处理概率、时间、距离这类“虚构”信息以达成风险、跨期、空间决策或是人类在与其他物种竞争中胜出的独有能力。我们设计了2个研究探究人们是采用3种领域独特性的决策策略, 还是统一采用一种连贯的、领域一般性的决策策略做出选择。研究1借助眼动追踪技术, 在整体层面发现个体在3种决策领域(风险、跨期、空间)中均表现出主要基于维度的眼跳模式; 在个体层面发现绝大多数参与者被划分为基于维度的决策者, 且我们构建的维度间注视时长差值和维度间眼跳次数的差值可以显著预测选择结果的变化, 为维度性的选择策略提供了支持性证据。研究2借助“直观模拟天平”发现, 个体在3种领域中均通过齐当别理论所假设的“维度间差异比较”策略来达成选择。两个研究表明“以虚对实” (不同量纲比较)策略比“化虚为实” (加权求和)策略能更好地预测人们的选择结果, 因此也更像是人们在3种不同决策领域中所使用的统一连贯策略。本研究的结果抑或能为今后3种决策领域的统一数学建模提供理论基础。

关键词: 眼动追踪, 直观模拟天平, 虚实维度, 维度间差异比较, 不同量纲比较


The fundamental issue regarding the difference between humans and animals has puzzled researchers in a broad range of academic fields and specializations. The ability to trade, which symbolizes the progress of human civilization, may be regarded as an important distinction between humans and animals. To sustain a trading activity, people need to deal with the possible issues of long-distance delivery (spatial choice), delayed delivery (intertemporal choice), and unfulfilled delivery (risky choice) in the exchange of goods.
These choices of different domains were well represented by the tangible (outcome) and intangible (probability/time/space) dimensions. Normally, the family of compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by comparing options which have been converted into the same units of quantity (Overall Payoff A vs. Overall Payoff B) in a way of “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Whereas, the family of non-compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by directly comparing values measured using different units of quantity (∆OutcomeA,B vs. ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/∆SpaceA,B) in a way of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rule. To test whether human beings have the potential to deal with the intangible dimensions of the data, the present paper attempts to obtain evidence to support the “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rules from a variety of decision tasks, which were formed by combing both tangible and intangible dimensions.
Study 1 aims to examine whether outcome difference between options and the probability/time/space difference between options were directly compared in three choice domains by using the eye-tracking technique. Our findings show that, from the group-level, decision makers perform a consistent dimension-based search pattern in the three domains, indicating that the decision processes are more dependent on a way of intra-dimensional comparison. From the individual-level, the vast majority of participants were classified as decision makers who using dimension-based strategy. Moreover, the two index we constructed, difference in gaze duration and difference in saccades frequency, could significantly predict the behavioral choice shift. Those results provide supporting evidence for dimensioned-based strategy in three choice domains.
However, Study 1 is still unable to answer the further question of whether the final decisions are reached through a process of comparing the eye movement information of ∆OutcomeA,B with ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/ ∆SpaceA,B. Study 2 therefore borrows a Visual Analog Scale to further examine whether the ∆OutcomeA,B and ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/∆SpaceA,B were treated in an equate-to-differentiate way in reaching the final decisions in three domains. Our findings indicate that the decisions can be made by the way of “intra-dimensional difference evaluation” prescribed by equate-to-differentiate theory.
The current paper provides supportive evidence for the comparison rule of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” and break a new ground different from the “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Future studies may consider the development of a general model to explain the choices of three different domains.

Key words: eye-tracking technique, visual analog scale, tangible and intangible dimension, intra-dimensional evaluation, comparison between different units of quantity