{"title":"用“啊哈!”增加风险偏好","authors":"Yuhua Yu, Carola Salvi, Maxi Becker, Mark Beeman","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided preliminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solving problems with an Aha! increases risk preference\",\"authors\":\"Yuhua Yu, Carola Salvi, Maxi Becker, Mark Beeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided preliminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Solving problems with an Aha! increases risk preference
AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided preliminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].