风险决策中对比效应和同化效应的相对重要性

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Eden Heilprin, Ido Erev
{"title":"风险决策中对比效应和同化效应的相对重要性","authors":"Eden Heilprin,&nbsp;Ido Erev","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Past research on decisions under risk has documented two contradictory context effects: the contrast effect, where risk preferences in “target” tasks diverge from those in previous “surrounding” tasks, and the assimilation effect that implies the opposite bias. We present four web experiments (three preregistered) that clarify the conditions determining the relative prominence of these opposing effects. Our experiments focus on choice patterns in “target” tasks where participants choose between the status quo and a risky mixed gamble with an expected value of zero. Study 1 examines the impact of surroundings that differ from the target task with respect to the expected benefit from risk-taking. The findings reveal a strong contrast effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>increased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 53.2% to 79.7%. Study 2 investigates the impact of surroundings that differ in the payoff domain. The findings indicate a strong assimilation effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>decreased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 74.7% to 36.5%. Additionally, the results revealed unpredicted and robust reversed loss aversion patterns which Studies 3 and 4 further clarify. Our findings (1) suggest that the isolated within-task computations assumed by leading descriptive models overlook substantial contextual considerations, (2) clarify the factors determining the impact of the contrast and assimilation effects in decisions under risk, and (3) provide a theoretical framework for making useful predictions in various scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2408","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk\",\"authors\":\"Eden Heilprin,&nbsp;Ido Erev\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2408\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Past research on decisions under risk has documented two contradictory context effects: the contrast effect, where risk preferences in “target” tasks diverge from those in previous “surrounding” tasks, and the assimilation effect that implies the opposite bias. We present four web experiments (three preregistered) that clarify the conditions determining the relative prominence of these opposing effects. Our experiments focus on choice patterns in “target” tasks where participants choose between the status quo and a risky mixed gamble with an expected value of zero. Study 1 examines the impact of surroundings that differ from the target task with respect to the expected benefit from risk-taking. The findings reveal a strong contrast effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>increased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 53.2% to 79.7%. Study 2 investigates the impact of surroundings that differ in the payoff domain. The findings indicate a strong assimilation effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>decreased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 74.7% to 36.5%. Additionally, the results revealed unpredicted and robust reversed loss aversion patterns which Studies 3 and 4 further clarify. Our findings (1) suggest that the isolated within-task computations assumed by leading descriptive models overlook substantial contextual considerations, (2) clarify the factors determining the impact of the contrast and assimilation effects in decisions under risk, and (3) provide a theoretical framework for making useful predictions in various scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2408\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2408\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2408","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去有关风险决策的研究记录了两种相互矛盾的情境效应:一种是对比效应,即 "目标 "任务中的风险偏好与之前 "周围 "任务中的风险偏好不同;另一种是同化效应,即相反的偏好。我们介绍了四项网络实验(其中三项是预先注册的),这些实验阐明了决定这些对立效应相对突出的条件。我们的实验侧重于 "目标 "任务中的选择模式,即参与者在维持现状和预期值为零的高风险混合赌博之间做出选择。研究 1 考察了与目标任务不同的环境对冒险预期收益的影响。研究结果显示了强烈的对比效应:降低周围环境任务中冒险的吸引力,会使目标任务中的冒险率从 53.2% 提高到 79.7%。研究 2 调查了在报酬领域不同的周围环境的影响。研究结果表明,同化效应很强:降低周围任务中冒险的吸引力会使目标任务中的冒险率从 74.7% 降至 36.5%。此外,研究结果还揭示了无法预测的、稳健的反向损失规避模式,研究 3 和研究 4 进一步阐明了这一点。我们的研究结果(1)表明,主要的描述性模型所假设的孤立的任务内计算忽略了大量的情境因素,(2)澄清了决定风险决策中对比效应和同化效应影响的因素,以及(3)提供了在各种情景下进行有用预测的理论框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk

The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk

Past research on decisions under risk has documented two contradictory context effects: the contrast effect, where risk preferences in “target” tasks diverge from those in previous “surrounding” tasks, and the assimilation effect that implies the opposite bias. We present four web experiments (three preregistered) that clarify the conditions determining the relative prominence of these opposing effects. Our experiments focus on choice patterns in “target” tasks where participants choose between the status quo and a risky mixed gamble with an expected value of zero. Study 1 examines the impact of surroundings that differ from the target task with respect to the expected benefit from risk-taking. The findings reveal a strong contrast effect: Decreasing the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks increased the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 53.2% to 79.7%. Study 2 investigates the impact of surroundings that differ in the payoff domain. The findings indicate a strong assimilation effect: Decreasing the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks decreased the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 74.7% to 36.5%. Additionally, the results revealed unpredicted and robust reversed loss aversion patterns which Studies 3 and 4 further clarify. Our findings (1) suggest that the isolated within-task computations assumed by leading descriptive models overlook substantial contextual considerations, (2) clarify the factors determining the impact of the contrast and assimilation effects in decisions under risk, and (3) provide a theoretical framework for making useful predictions in various scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
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