重组如何影响复杂决策中的信心:来自行为测量和决策风格的证据。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Michela Balconi, Angelica Daffinà, Laura Angioletti
{"title":"重组如何影响复杂决策中的信心:来自行为测量和决策风格的证据。","authors":"Michela Balconi, Angelica Daffinà, Laura Angioletti","doi":"10.3390/brainsci15030244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. <b>Methods</b>: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. <b>Results</b>: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants' confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. <b>Conclusions</b>: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Reframing Affects Confidence in Complex Decisions: Evidence from Behavioral Measures and Decisional Styles.\",\"authors\":\"Michela Balconi, Angelica Daffinà, Laura Angioletti\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/brainsci15030244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. <b>Methods</b>: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. <b>Results</b>: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants' confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. <b>Conclusions</b>: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940415/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030244\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030244","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:本研究以健康成人为样本,考察了重构对决策信心的影响及其与个人决策风格的联系。方法:被试完成一个“抗拒重构任务”,该任务包括两个决策步骤。在每一步中,他们从四种工作场合的备选方案中选择最佳方案,并对自己的决定信心进行评分。然后,任务被重新定义,以突出他们最初选择的负面后果,他们重新评估自己的信心。记录每个步骤的信心评分和反应时间(RTs)。一般决策风格(GDMS)和最大化量表(MS)也被用来描述决策风格,并探讨其与行为反应的联系。结果:研究结果表明,重构显著降低了参与者的信心,尤其是在第一步,突出了它在挑战初始选择时的有效性。此外,重构后的高级RTs强调视角变化所带来的认知复杂性,并允许我们描述决策过程的动态。相关研究结果表明,虽然一些特征(如依赖型)在重构后降低了信心,但其他特征(如高标准、决策困难)似乎增强了信心。同样,决策风格如MS替代搜索增加RTs,反映了重构决策背景的高度复杂性。结论:研究结果强调了在重构条件下研究决策时考虑决策信心和个体差异的重要性。决策风格的个体差异可能成为决策过程中重构的保护性或脆弱性因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Reframing Affects Confidence in Complex Decisions: Evidence from Behavioral Measures and Decisional Styles.

Background/Objectives: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. Methods: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. Results: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants' confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. Conclusions: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.

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
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
期刊介绍: Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
×
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