Ni ingenuos ni malvados. Enmarcado y estrategias dominantes en la toma de decisiones en contextos de ignorancia

IF 0.2 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Juan Antonio González de Requena Farré
{"title":"Ni ingenuos ni malvados. Enmarcado y estrategias dominantes en la toma de decisiones en contextos de ignorancia","authors":"Juan Antonio González de Requena Farré","doi":"10.16925/PE.V11I18.1219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Numerous psychological research studies about decision-making address both risk and ignorance under the category of decision in contexts of uncertainty. Objective: In this research work, the aim is to specifically describe the ways certain decision rules are used in a context of ignorance in the context of different consequences, affected parties and properties. In this way, it is possible to determine whether or not some of the ways of framing a decision that have been observed in contexts of risk actually occur, such as those considered by the prospective theory of Kahneman and Tversky. Methodology: A comparative study of the results was made of the results of a questionnaire with 24 gambling situations with different properties, affected parties and consequences, which was then applied to a sample of 232 people with their informed consent. Results: The results showed significant differences in the use of decision criteria in contexts of ignorance, with a clear predominance of the conservative strategy. Conclusions: It may be concluded that in contexts of decision-making in ignorance, aversion to loss becomes acute and the framing effect observed in low-risk decisions is slightly modified, because more risk is not necessarily run in a perspective of loss.","PeriodicalId":53843,"journal":{"name":"Pensando Psicologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pensando Psicologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16925/PE.V11I18.1219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous psychological research studies about decision-making address both risk and ignorance under the category of decision in contexts of uncertainty. Objective: In this research work, the aim is to specifically describe the ways certain decision rules are used in a context of ignorance in the context of different consequences, affected parties and properties. In this way, it is possible to determine whether or not some of the ways of framing a decision that have been observed in contexts of risk actually occur, such as those considered by the prospective theory of Kahneman and Tversky. Methodology: A comparative study of the results was made of the results of a questionnaire with 24 gambling situations with different properties, affected parties and consequences, which was then applied to a sample of 232 people with their informed consent. Results: The results showed significant differences in the use of decision criteria in contexts of ignorance, with a clear predominance of the conservative strategy. Conclusions: It may be concluded that in contexts of decision-making in ignorance, aversion to loss becomes acute and the framing effect observed in low-risk decisions is slightly modified, because more risk is not necessarily run in a perspective of loss.
既不天真也不邪恶。无知情境下决策的框架和主导策略
许多关于决策的心理学研究都在不确定性背景下的决策范畴下讨论风险和无知。目的:在这项研究工作中,目的是具体描述在不同后果、受影响方和属性的背景下,在无知的背景下使用某些决策规则的方式。通过这种方式,有可能确定在风险背景下观察到的一些制定决策的方法是否实际发生,例如卡纳曼和特沃斯基的前瞻性理论所考虑的那些方法。方法:对24种不同性质、受影响方和后果的赌博情况的问卷调查结果进行比较研究,然后在知情同意的情况下将其应用于232人的样本。结果:结果显示,在无知的情况下,决策标准的使用有显著差异,保守策略明显占主导地位。结论:在无知决策情境下,对损失的厌恶变得尖锐,在低风险决策中观察到的框架效应略有改变,因为在损失的视角下并不一定会承担更多的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pensando Psicologia
Pensando Psicologia PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信