时间压力会改变风险选择的影响差距吗?

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
R. Philips, T. Pachur, C. Vögele, D. Brevers
{"title":"时间压力会改变风险选择的影响差距吗?","authors":"R. Philips,&nbsp;T. Pachur,&nbsp;C. Vögele,&nbsp;D. Brevers","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People often exhibit systematic differences in their risky choices when decisions elicit high anticipatory affect compared to choices that are relatively affect-poor—typically showing lower decision quality and greater risk aversion. This <i>affect gap</i> can be modeled by assuming that people use a compensatory strategy (i.e., a strategy that weighs outcomes against their probability of occurring) in affect-poor choices, but a simple non-compensatory strategy that considers outcome but ignores probability information in affect-rich choices. The reasons for this difference in strategy selection, however, are not yet understood. To examine whether the affect gap may reflect that in affect-rich choices, cognitive resources are more strongly taxed (leading to a simplification of the underlying decision strategy), we investigated whether the affect gap is impacted by a time pressure manipulation. Participants were asked to choose between affect-rich prospects (medical lotteries) and economically equivalent but relatively affect-poor prospects (monetary lotteries), either without a time constraint or under time pressure. The results indicated that the affect gap manifested similarly under time pressure as without time pressure. Specifically, differences between affect-rich and affect-poor choices in strategy selection did not differ between time pressure conditions, and differences in decision quality and risk aversion were even slightly attenuated under time pressure. The findings suggest that the differences in decision behavior between affect-rich and affect-poor choices are not driven by cognitive constraints. We discuss the potential psychological mechanisms involved in the affect gap.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70028","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Time Pressure Alter the Affect Gap in Risky Choice?\",\"authors\":\"R. Philips,&nbsp;T. Pachur,&nbsp;C. Vögele,&nbsp;D. Brevers\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.70028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People often exhibit systematic differences in their risky choices when decisions elicit high anticipatory affect compared to choices that are relatively affect-poor—typically showing lower decision quality and greater risk aversion. This <i>affect gap</i> can be modeled by assuming that people use a compensatory strategy (i.e., a strategy that weighs outcomes against their probability of occurring) in affect-poor choices, but a simple non-compensatory strategy that considers outcome but ignores probability information in affect-rich choices. The reasons for this difference in strategy selection, however, are not yet understood. To examine whether the affect gap may reflect that in affect-rich choices, cognitive resources are more strongly taxed (leading to a simplification of the underlying decision strategy), we investigated whether the affect gap is impacted by a time pressure manipulation. Participants were asked to choose between affect-rich prospects (medical lotteries) and economically equivalent but relatively affect-poor prospects (monetary lotteries), either without a time constraint or under time pressure. The results indicated that the affect gap manifested similarly under time pressure as without time pressure. Specifically, differences between affect-rich and affect-poor choices in strategy selection did not differ between time pressure conditions, and differences in decision quality and risk aversion were even slightly attenuated under time pressure. The findings suggest that the differences in decision behavior between affect-rich and affect-poor choices are not driven by cognitive constraints. We discuss the potential psychological mechanisms involved in the affect gap.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70028\",\"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.70028\",\"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.70028","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

当决策引起高预期影响时,人们在做出风险选择时,往往会表现出系统性的差异,而相比之下,影响相对较差的选择通常表现出较低的决策质量和更大的风险厌恶。这种影响差距可以通过假设人们在影响差的选择中使用补偿策略(即权衡结果与其发生概率的策略),而在影响多的选择中使用考虑结果但忽略概率信息的简单非补偿策略来建模。然而,这种策略选择差异的原因尚不清楚。为了检验情感差距是否反映了在情感丰富的选择中,认知资源的消耗更大(导致潜在决策策略的简化),我们研究了情感差距是否受到时间压力操纵的影响。参与者被要求在情感丰富的前景(医疗彩票)和经济上同等但相对较差的前景(金钱彩票)之间做出选择,要么没有时间限制,要么有时间压力。结果表明,时间压力下的影响差距与没有时间压力时相似。具体而言,在不同的时间压力条件下,情感丰富和情感贫乏的策略选择差异不存在差异,在时间压力条件下,决策质量和风险厌恶的差异甚至略有减弱。研究结果表明,情感丰富和情感贫乏的决策行为差异并不是由认知约束驱动的。我们讨论了情感缺口的潜在心理机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Does Time Pressure Alter the Affect Gap in Risky Choice?

Does Time Pressure Alter the Affect Gap in Risky Choice?

People often exhibit systematic differences in their risky choices when decisions elicit high anticipatory affect compared to choices that are relatively affect-poor—typically showing lower decision quality and greater risk aversion. This affect gap can be modeled by assuming that people use a compensatory strategy (i.e., a strategy that weighs outcomes against their probability of occurring) in affect-poor choices, but a simple non-compensatory strategy that considers outcome but ignores probability information in affect-rich choices. The reasons for this difference in strategy selection, however, are not yet understood. To examine whether the affect gap may reflect that in affect-rich choices, cognitive resources are more strongly taxed (leading to a simplification of the underlying decision strategy), we investigated whether the affect gap is impacted by a time pressure manipulation. Participants were asked to choose between affect-rich prospects (medical lotteries) and economically equivalent but relatively affect-poor prospects (monetary lotteries), either without a time constraint or under time pressure. The results indicated that the affect gap manifested similarly under time pressure as without time pressure. Specifically, differences between affect-rich and affect-poor choices in strategy selection did not differ between time pressure conditions, and differences in decision quality and risk aversion were even slightly attenuated under time pressure. The findings suggest that the differences in decision behavior between affect-rich and affect-poor choices are not driven by cognitive constraints. We discuss the potential psychological mechanisms involved in the affect gap.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信