学习时间分配的有限理性:基于风险选择框架效应的证据。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Hui Xu, Yuanxia Gao, Qian Xiao, Nan Li, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu
{"title":"学习时间分配的有限理性:基于风险选择框架效应的证据。","authors":"Hui Xu, Yuanxia Gao, Qian Xiao, Nan Li, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu","doi":"10.3390/bs14111091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When allocating study time for the English sections of the National College Entrance Examination or the Postgraduate Entrance Examination, learners often encounter value-test likelihood trade-offs, where questions of similar difficulty may have different points and different likelihoods of being tested. This research explored how individuals allocated study time and whether this process exhibited bounded rationality by examining the risky choice framing effects in study time allocation. The research set up two types of items: 1-point items with a 90% likelihood and 9-point items with a 10% likelihood. Each type of item had the same test likelihood but was expressed in different framings. For the 90% likelihood items, the test framing emphasized that they had a 90% likelihood of being tested. Meanwhile, the non-test framing emphasized that they had a 10% likelihood of not being tested. A total of 41 college students participated in the study, and they were allowed to self-regulate their study time for each type of item. The results showed that learners' study time allocation differed under the two equivalent framings. This indicates that the process of study time allocation is not completely rational, but is rather boundedly rational, which is inconsistent with the expected utility theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":8742,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences","volume":"14 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bounded Rationality in Study Time Allocation: Evidence Based on Risky Choice Framing Effects.\",\"authors\":\"Hui Xu, Yuanxia Gao, Qian Xiao, Nan Li, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bs14111091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When allocating study time for the English sections of the National College Entrance Examination or the Postgraduate Entrance Examination, learners often encounter value-test likelihood trade-offs, where questions of similar difficulty may have different points and different likelihoods of being tested. This research explored how individuals allocated study time and whether this process exhibited bounded rationality by examining the risky choice framing effects in study time allocation. The research set up two types of items: 1-point items with a 90% likelihood and 9-point items with a 10% likelihood. Each type of item had the same test likelihood but was expressed in different framings. For the 90% likelihood items, the test framing emphasized that they had a 90% likelihood of being tested. Meanwhile, the non-test framing emphasized that they had a 10% likelihood of not being tested. A total of 41 college students participated in the study, and they were allowed to self-regulate their study time for each type of item. The results showed that learners' study time allocation differed under the two equivalent framings. This indicates that the process of study time allocation is not completely rational, but is rather boundedly rational, which is inconsistent with the expected utility theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Sciences\",\"volume\":\"14 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590912/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111091\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在分配全国高考或研究生入学考试英语部分的学习时间时,学习者经常会遇到价值-考试可能性的权衡问题,即难度相似的试题可能会有不同的考点和不同的考试可能性。本研究通过考察学习时间分配中的风险选择框架效应,探讨个体如何分配学习时间,以及这一过程是否表现出有界理性。研究设置了两类项目:1分项目的可能性为90%,9分项目的可能性为10%。每类项目的测试可能性相同,但表达框架不同。对于 90% 可能性的项目,测试框架强调它们有 90% 的可能性接受测试。而非测试框架则强调它们有 10%的可能性不会被测试。共有 41 名大学生参与了这项研究,他们可以对每类题目的学习时间进行自我调节。结果显示,在两种等效框架下,学习者的学习时间分配有所不同。这表明学习时间分配过程并非完全理性,而是有界理性,这与期望效用理论不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bounded Rationality in Study Time Allocation: Evidence Based on Risky Choice Framing Effects.

When allocating study time for the English sections of the National College Entrance Examination or the Postgraduate Entrance Examination, learners often encounter value-test likelihood trade-offs, where questions of similar difficulty may have different points and different likelihoods of being tested. This research explored how individuals allocated study time and whether this process exhibited bounded rationality by examining the risky choice framing effects in study time allocation. The research set up two types of items: 1-point items with a 90% likelihood and 9-point items with a 10% likelihood. Each type of item had the same test likelihood but was expressed in different framings. For the 90% likelihood items, the test framing emphasized that they had a 90% likelihood of being tested. Meanwhile, the non-test framing emphasized that they had a 10% likelihood of not being tested. A total of 41 college students participated in the study, and they were allowed to self-regulate their study time for each type of item. The results showed that learners' study time allocation differed under the two equivalent framings. This indicates that the process of study time allocation is not completely rational, but is rather boundedly rational, which is inconsistent with the expected utility theory.

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
Behavioral Sciences
Behavioral Sciences Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
429
审稿时长
11 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