损失领域跨时间段决策的框架效应将影响债务置换决策偏好*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0651

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

框架效应是违背理性决策公理的稳健现象。本研究旨在检验在损失领域跨时间段决策中是否存在框架效应, 并探讨其对债务置换政策的可能影响。研究发现：(1)对于债务到期日与总量均不变的单一方案, 不同框架显著影响债务人接受程度。相较于高频框架(如周付), 低频框架(如年付)能显著提高债务人的接受程度; (2)对于债务到期日不同但总量恒定的二择一方案, 不同描述框架显著影响债务人偏好。相较于高频框架/常规时间轴, 低频框架/压缩时间轴使债务人更倾向于接受利率高、期限短的初始债务方案。实验观察到的决策偏好符合“图形编辑的齐当别模型” (The Graph-edited Equate-to-differentiate Model)的预测。本研究开启了对损失领域跨时间段决策的理解, 为“时间助推工具箱”提供了新工具, 并为债务置换政策评估和债务管理优化提供了心理科学支撑。

关键词: 债务置换, 损失领域, 跨时间段决策, 框架效应, 助推

Abstract:

The framing effect emerges as one of the most robust effects among effects that violate rational axioms. This study focuses on two innovative research directions. First, on a theoretical level, it explores whether the framing effect exists in cross-period temporal choice in the loss domain, which has not been empirically studied before. Second, on a practical level, it examines how to use this effect to optimize the implementation of the debt swap policy proposed in the “Local Government Debt Risk Resolution Plan” passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 2024.

Online participants were recruited through a survey platform to complete preference evaluation tasks that consisted of five studies. Study 1a (N= 1200) employed a 2 (repayment frequency: annual vs. monthly) × 2 (presentation format: text vs. graphic) between-subjects design. Study 1b (N= 403) used a mixed design with 3 (repayment frequency: annual vs. monthly vs. weekly, within-subject) × 2 (presentation format: text vs. graphic, between-subjects). Study 2a (N= 900) utilized a one-factor (condition: monthly, annual vs. compressed) between-subjects design. The first experiment in Study 2b (N= 180) adopted a within-subject design (repayment frequency: monthly vs. weekly), while the second experiment (N= 180) used a within-subject design (compression condition: normal vs. compressed). In the within-subject designs, evaluations under different conditions were separated by at least a three-day interval. The task in Study 1 required participants to rate their acceptance of a single debt repayment plan under different conditions. Meanwhile, the task in Study 2 involved participants rating their acceptance of paired debt plans (initial debt vs. swapped debt) under different conditions.

The findings are as follows: First, different descriptions of a single debt plan, where both the debt maturity and the total amount of debt remain unchanged can trigger the framing effect. Whether presented in textual or graphical format, the framing of repayment plans with different frequencies significantly influences debtors’ acceptance of the repayment plan. Compared with the high-frequency frame that “appears to last longer” (e.g., weekly payments), the low-frequency frame that “appears to last shorter” (e.g., annual payments) enhances debtors’ acceptance of a debt plan where the maturity and the total amount remain unchanged. Second, even without changing the basic facts, varying descriptions can generate framing effects for a choice between two debt-repayment schemes where “the debt maturity is different but the total debt remains constant.” Different frames (e.g., monthly payments vs. annual payments, conventional timeline vs. compressed timeline) significantly affect debtors’ preferences for the two options (initial debt vs. swapped debt). Compared with the monthly payment frame/conventional timeline frame, the annual payment frame/compressed timeline frame makes debtors more inclined to accept the initial debt plan.

Participants’ exhibited preferences in the loss domain across different debt repayment time frames align with the explanation and prediction of the equate-to-differentiate wayof seeing cross-period temporal choices. We hope that our findings on the exploration of framing effects can expand our understanding of cross-period temporal choices, add a tool to the “time nudge toolbox,” and provide psychological science support for evaluating the effectiveness of the policy measure of “debt swapping” and optimizing debt management.

Key words: debt swap, loss domain, cross-period temporal choice, framing effect, nudge

中图分类号:

B849: C91

马家涛, 李纾, 何贵兵. (2026). 损失领域跨时间段决策的框架效应将影响债务置换决策偏好^*. 心理学报, 58(4), 651-666.

MA Jia-Tao, LI Shu, HE Guibing. (2026). The framing effect of cross-period temporal choice in the loss domain will influence the preference for debt-swapping decisions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(4), 651-666.

图/表 12

图1 对初始债务和置换债务的图形描述

图2 “实验推导的时间偏好估计”与“现实生活选择行为”相关系数矩阵热图 (用马家涛等(2024)实验数据绘制)。鉴于样本量充足(N = 1200), 所有系数在统计上均达显著水平, 图中仅展示系数值(即效应量), 未另行标注显著性。彩图见电子版, 下同。

图3 不同呈现形式(文字 vs. 图形)和还款频率(月付 vs. 年付)下对还债方案的接受程度。还款频率越低(年付), 决策者对还债方案的接受程度越高。* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001

图4 不同呈现形式(图形 vs. 文字)和还款频率(周付 vs. 月付 vs. 年付)下对还债方案的接受程度。随还款频率降低(周付→年付), 决策者对还债方案的接受程度升高。** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

图5 月付(a)、年付(b)和压缩(c)框架下的配对债务图形

图6 不同框架下对还债方案的接受程度。* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

图7 研究2b中的还款频率框架：月付(a)和周付(b)框架下的配对债务图形

图8 不同框架下对还债方案的接受程度。* p < 0.05

图9 研究2b中的压缩时间轴框架：常规(a)和压缩(b)框架下的配对债务图形

图10 不同框架下的还债方案接受程度。*** p < 0.001

图11 左：用“等距时间框架”表达的美国GDP变化; 右：用“不等距时间框架”表达的世界GDP变化 (来源： https://howmuch.net/)

附表2 各研究中债务选项总额及其计算详情

研究	方案类型	具体方案	总额(元)	计算说明
研究1a	年付框架	每年还1.2万元, 分10年	120, 000	1.2万/年×10年
研究1a	月付框架	每月还1千元, 分120个月	120, 000	1千/月×120个月
研究1b	年付框架	每年还1万元, 分2年	20, 000	1万/年×2年
	月付框架	每月还833.3元, 分24个月	19, 999.2	833.3元/月×24个月
	周付框架	每周还192.3元, 分104周	19, 999.2	192.3元/周×104周
研究2a	初始债务	利率5%、36个月/3年	107, 708	单利计算
研究2a	置换债务	利率2%、84个月/7年	112, 750	单利计算
研究2b-月付频率	初始债务	利率6%、24个月	106, 250	单利计算
研究2b-月付频率	置换债务	利率2%、60个月	105, 080	单利计算
研究2b-周付频率	初始债务	利率6%、104周	105, 012	单利计算
研究2b-周付频率	置换债务	利率2%、260周	103, 806	单利计算
研究2b-压缩时间	初始债务	利率6%、24个月	106, 250	单利计算
研究2b-压缩时间	置换债务	利率2%、60个月	105, 080	单利计算

参考文献 70

[1]	Arrow K. J. (1982). Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry, 20(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1111/ecin.1982.20.issue-1 URL
[2]	Bartels D. M., Li Y., & Bharti S. (2023). How well do laboratory-derived estimates of time preference predict real-world behaviors? Comparisons to four benchmarks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9), 2651-2665. doi: 10.1037/xge0001380 URL
[3]	Bonini B., Hadjichristidis C., & Graffeo M. (2018). Green nudging. Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报), 50(8), 814-826.
[4]	财政部. (2025). 2025年6月地方政府债券发行和债务余额情况. 财政部官网. 2025-07-30取自 https://yss.mof.gov.cn/zhuantilanmu/dfzgl/sjtj/202507/t20250730_3968958.htm
[5]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 pmid: 19897823
[6]	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
[7]	Geng X., Zhang K., Ma J., Yang H., Chen Z., & Li S. (2023). Blue, rather than red light can nudge employees to choose delayed but larger wage payment. Environment and Behavior, 54(9-10), 1227-1250. doi: 10.1177/00139165231153160 URL
[8]	Gigerenzer G., & Gaissmaier W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451-482. doi: 10.1146/psych.2011.62.issue-1 URL
[9]	Gigerenzer G., Luan S., & Liu Y. (2019). Are we truly irrational and almost impossible to educate? Analyzing the scientific evidence behind libertine paternalism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 395-406. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00395
	[Gerd Gigerenzer, 栾胜华, 刘永芳. (2019). 人非理性且难教化?论支持自由家长主义的证据. 心理学报, 51(4), 395-406.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00395
[10]	Green L., Fristoe N., & Myerson J. (1994). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(3), 383-389. doi: 10.3758/BF03213979 URL
[11]	Green L., & Myerson J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769-792. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769 pmid: 15367080
[12]	He G. -B., Li S., & Liang Z. -Y. (2018). Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 803-813. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803 URL
	[何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 50(8), 803-813.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803
[13]	Holm S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
[14]	Huang Y. -N., Jiang C. -M., Liu H. -Z., & Li S. (2023). Toward a coherent understanding of risky, intertemporal, and spatial choices: Evidence from eye-tracking and subjective evaluation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 994-1015. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00994
	[黄元娜, 江程铭, 刘洪志, 李纾. (2023). 风险、跨期和空间决策的决策策略共享: 眼动和主观判断的证据. 心理学报, 55(6), 994-1015.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00994
[15]	Jiang C. -M. (2013). Mechanism of intertemporal choice: From a perspective of equate-to-differentiate model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
	[江程铭. (2013). 跨期选择的心理机制: 基于齐当别的视角 (博士学位论文). 中国科学院大学.]
[16]	Jiang C. M., Chen L. N., Luo Q., Wang W., Zhou J., & Ma J. T. (2025). The token undermining effect: When and why adding a small reward to a dated outcome makes it less preferred. British Journal of Psychology, 116(2), 386-408. doi: 10.1111/bjop.v116.2 URL
[17]	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
	[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.]
[18]	Kahneman D., & Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[19]	Kahneman D., & Tversky A. (1982). The Psychology of Preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160-173. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160 URL
[20]	Kang L., Kuang Y., Li S., Zheng X., & Du F. (2025). The time-space frame in road signs affects pathfinding driving performance: Results from Bayesian networks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(4), e70094.
[21]	Kim B. K., & Zauberman G. (2009). Perception of anticipatory time in temporal discounting. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2(2), 91-101. doi: 10.1037/a0017686 URL
[22]	Kuang Y., Huang Y. N., & Li S. (2023). A framing effect of intertemporal and spatial choice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(6), 1298-1320. doi: 10.1177/17470218221113519 URL
[23]	Larrick R. P., & Soll J. B. (2008). The MPG Illusion. Science, 320(5883), 1593-1594. doi: 10.1126/science.1154983 URL
[24]	Levin I. P., & Gaeth G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374-378. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1988.15.issue-3 URL
[25]	Levin I. P., Gaeth G. J., Schreiber J., & Lauriola M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411-429. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2983 URL
[26]	Levin I. P., Johnson R. D., & Davis M. L. (1987). How information frame influences risky decisions: Between- subjects and within-subject comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8(1), 43-54. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(87)90005-5 URL
[27]	Levin I. P., Schneider S. L., & Gaeth G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. pmid: 9831520
[28]	Li S. (1994). Equate-to-differentiate theory: A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk [Unpublished doctorial dissertation]. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
[29]	Li S. (1998). Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined? Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(1), 133-153. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00039-1 URL
[30]	Li S. (2001). Allais paradox: A behavioral explanation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 33(2), 176-181.
	[李纾. (2001). 艾勒悖论(Allais Paradox)另释. 心理学报, 33(2), 176-181.]
[31]	Li S. (2016). An equate-to-differentiate way of decision making (in Chinese). East China Normal University Press.
	[李纾. (2016). 决策心理: 齐当别之道. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[32]	Li S., & Adams A. S. (1995). Is there something more important behind framing? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 62(2), 216-219. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1044 URL
[33]	Li S., Fang Y. Q., & Zhang X. J. (2000). What makes frames work? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 32(2), 229-234.
	[李纾, 房永青, 张迅捷. (2000). 再探框架对风险决策行为的影响. 心理学报. 32(2), 229-234.]
[34]	Li S., & Xie X. (2006). A new look at the “Asian disease” problem: A choice between the best possible outcomes or between the worst possible outcomes? Thinking & Reasoning, 12(2), 129-143.
[35]	Li Y., Zhang X., & Chang X. (2015). China's National Balance Sheet 2015: Leverage Adjustment and Risk Management. China Social Sciences Press.
	[李扬, 张晓晶, 常欣. (2015). 中国国家资产负债表2015:杠杆调整与风险管理. 中国社会科学出版社.]
[36]	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
	[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.]
[37]	Liu H. -Z., Li S., & Rao L. -L. (2018). Out of debt, out of burden: The physical burdens of debt. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 155-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.01.003 URL
[38]	Loewenstein G., & Prelec D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. doi: 10.2307/2118482 URL
[39]	Luckman A., Donkin C., & Newell B. (2020). An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1097-1138. doi: 10.1037/rev0000223 URL
[40]	Luo X., Liang Q., & Yang X. (2017). “Gray Rhino” and “Black Swan” for current China’s economy. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32(12), 1356-1370.
	[骆晓强, 梁权琦, 杨晓光. (2017). 当前中国经济的“灰犀牛”和“黑天鹅”. 中国科学院院刊, 32(12), 1356-1370.]
[41]	Ma J. T. (2025). Dual modes of temporal decision-making: Cross-period and cross-point decision-making [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
	[马家涛. (2025). 时间决策的双模式:跨时间段和跨时间点决策的行为特点与心理机制 (博士学位论文). 浙江大学.]
[42]	Ma J. T., He G. B., & Li S. (2023). A Study on cross-period temporal choice and Its Mechanisms: Different from cross-point temporal choice. The 4rd Annual Conference of Decision Making Psychology Professional Committee of Chinese Psychological Society. Xinjiang, China.
	[马家涛, 何贵兵, 李纾. (2023). 有别于点跨期决策的段跨期决策及其机制初探. 中国心理学会决策心理学专业委员会第四届学术年会. 新疆喀什.]
[43]	Ma J. T., He G. B., & Li S. (2024). Which decision - temporal decision via the trade-off between "earlier vs. later" or via the trade-off between "shorter vs. longer" - can explain and predict people's far-sighted behavior? The 5rd Annual Conference of Decision Making Psychology Professional Committee of Chinese Psychological Society. Tibet, China.
	[马家涛, 何贵兵, 李纾. (2024). 权衡“迟早”的时间决策与权衡“长短”的时间决策, 哪种决策能解释和预测人们的远视行为?. 中国心理学会决策心理学专业委员会第五届学术年会. 西藏林芝.]
[44]	Ma J. T., Wang L., Chen L. N., He Q., Sun Q. Z., Sun H. Y., & Jiang C. M. (2021). Comparing mixed intertemporal tradeoffs with pure gains or pure losses. Judgment and Decision Making, 16(3), 709-728.
[45]	Nan L. X., Park S., & Yang Y. (2023). Rejections are more contagious than choices: How another’s decisions shape our own. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(2), 363-381. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucad007 URL
[46]	Qiu Z., Wang Z., & Wang Z. (2022). Local government debt replacement plan and new implicit debt——Based on issuance scale and pricing of chengtou bonds. China Industrial Economics, 4, 42-60.
	[邱志刚, 王子悦, 王卓. (2022). 地方政府债务置换与新增隐性债务——基于城投债发行规模与定价的分析. 中国工业经济, 4, 42-60.]
[47]	Read D., Frederick S., Orsel B., & Rahman J. (2005). Four score and seven years from now: The date/delay effect in temporal discounting. Management Science, 51(9), 1326-1335. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0412 URL
[48]	Shen S. C., Khishignyam B., Ding Y., Ma J. T., Yang S. W., Kuang Y., … Li S. (2023). Changes in the intertemporal choices of people in or close to Chinese culture can predict their self-rated survival achievement in the fight against COVID-19: A cross-national study in 18 Asian, African, European, American, and Oceanian countries. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 435-454. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00435
	[沈丝楚, 希喜格, 丁阳, 马家涛, 杨舒雯, 匡仪, … 李纾. (2023). 跨期选择的变易程度正向预测中华文化圈国民的自评扛疫成效:亚非欧美大洋洲18国跨国研究. 心理学报, 55(3), 435-454.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00435
[49]	Shen S. C., Wang Y. M., Zhang H. B., & Ma J. T. (2023). Discount or trade off: The psychological mechanisms of intertemporal choice with double-dated mixed outcomes. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(7), 1121-1132. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01121 URL
	[沈丝楚, 王耀民, 张寒冰, 马家涛. (2023). 折扣还是权衡:混合得失双结果跨期决策的理论探索. 心理科学进展, 31(7), 1121-1132.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01121
[50]	Stanovich K. E., & West R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking & Reasoning, 4(4), 289-317.
[51]	Sun H. L., Li A. M., Shen S. C., Xiong G. X., Rao L. L., Zheng R., Sun H.Y., & Li S. (2020). Early departure, early revival: A "free from care" account of negative temporal discounting. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 103-116. doi: 10.5709/acp-0289-0 URL
[52]	Sun H. -Y., Li A. -M., Chen S., Zhao D., Rao L. -L., Liang Z. -Y., & Li S. (2015). Pain now or later: An outgrowth account of pain-minimization. PLoS ONE. 10(3), e0119320.
[53]	Sun H. -Y., Ma J. -T., Zhou L., Jiang C. -M., & Li S. (2022). Waiting is painful: The impact of anticipated dread on negative discounting in the loss domain. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(6), 1353-1378. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500009451 URL
[54]	Sun Y., Huang L., & Liu Y. (2012). Graph-framing effects in decision making. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(11), 1718-1726. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01718
	[孙彦, 黄莉, 刘扬. (2012). 决策中的图形框架效应. 心理科学进展, 20(11), 1718-1726.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01718
[55]	Sun Y., Li S., Bonini N., & Su Y. (2012). Graph framing effects in decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 25(5), 491-501. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v25.5 URL
[56]	Sunstein C. R. (2014). Why nudge?: The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press.
[57]	Tang S., Koval C. Z., Larrick R. P., & Harris L. (2020). The morality of organization versus organized members: Organizations are attributed more control and responsibility for negative outcomes than are equivalent members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 901-919. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000229 pmid: 32105101
[58]	Thaler R. (2021). What’s next for nudging and choice architecture? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 163, 4-5. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.04.003 URL
[59]	Thaler R. H., & Sunstein C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[60]	Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 pmid: 7455683
[61]	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
[62]	Wang Z., Chen C., Mo J., Lu F., Ma J. T., Chen C., & He G. (2023). Experiencing Buddhist practices promotes nonbelievers’ preference for future rewards in intertemporal choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 230-244. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v53.1 URL
[63]	Xu L. J., Liang Z. Y., Wang K., Li S., & Jiang T. Z. (2009). From discounting future gains to future losses. China Basic Science, 11(6), 25-27.
	[徐丽娟, 梁竹苑, 王坤, 李纾, 蒋田仔. (2009). 跨期选择的神经机制:从折扣未来获益到折扣未来损失. 中国基础科学, 11(6), 25-27.]
[64]	Zauberman G., Kim B. K., Malkoc S. A., & Bettman J. R. (2009). Discounting time and time discounting: Subjective time perception and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(4), 543-556. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.4.543 URL
[65]	Zhang K. (2016). Column call for papers: Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization. Acta Psychologica Sinica. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/news/news13.shtml
	[张侃. (2016). “以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展”专栏征稿启事. 心理学报. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/news/news13.shtml]
[66]	Zhang S., & Li S. (2018). Exploring behavioral public administration: Content, method and trend. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 1-36+219.
	[张书维, 李纾. (2018). 行为公共管理学探新: 内容、方法与趋势. 公共行政评论, 11(1), 1-36+219.]
[67]	Zhang Y. -Y., Zhou L., Li S., & Liang Z. -Y. (2022). Computation of subjective value does not always elicit alternative-based information searching in intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(4), 1-13.
[68]	Zhang Y. Y., Zhou L., You X. Q., Li S., & Liang Z. Y. (2018). Is intertemporal decision-making based on a temporal discounting process? Evidence from doubledissociation paradigm. Scientia Sinica (Vitae), 48(5), 592-608.
	[张阳阳, 周蕾, 游旭群, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 跨期决策是否基于“折扣计算”: 来自双分离范式的证据. 中国科学:生命科学, 48(5), 592-608.]
[69]	Zhou L., Li A. M., Zhang L., Li S., & Liang Z. Y. (2019). Similarity in processes of risky choice and intertemporal choice: The case of certainty effect and immediacy effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(3), 337-352. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337
	[周蕾, 李爱梅, 张磊, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2019). 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. 心理学报, 51(3), 337-352.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337
[70]	Zhou L., Yang Y., & Li S. (2022). Music-induced emotions influence intertemporal decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 36(2), 211-229. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2021.1995331 URL