期刊文献+

决策中的图形框架效应 被引量:15

Graph-framing Effects in Decision Making
下载PDF
导出
摘要 决策框架效应作为一种违背不变性原则的非理性偏差,已经得到研究的广泛证实。本研究突破了传统研究中主要由语言描述引发框架效应的限制,从图形表征这一新的视角对图形框架效应做了深入探讨。本研究共包括6个实验,通过操纵选项在不同图形表征版本中物理属性差异的突出性,发现在表达信息不变的情况下,人们判断和决策的偏好会受到图形表征的影响,即出现了图形框架效应。研究结果表明,图形框架效应普遍存在于各种决策情境以及各种图形表征方式中。基于属性替代理论和齐当别原则,我们提出了一种解释图形框架效应内部作用机制的两阶段心理加工模型--图形编辑的齐当别模型(The Graph-edited Equate-to-differentiate Model,GEM)。 In contrast to the axiom of description invariance, researchers interested in decision framing effects are accumulating evidence that different representations of the same problem do not yield the same preference. Traditional research on framing effects has commonly utilized verbal scenarios. In contrast, the current study manipulated the graphical representation of options by framing the physical characters in figures and found that preferences could be affected even when the words and numbers of the problem were constant. Our evidence showed that such graph framing effects could be detected across different types of graphical displays and different question scenarios. Based on attribute substitution theory and an equate-to-differentiate approach, we proposed a two-process model of graph framing effects: The Graphedited Equate-to-differentiate Model (GEM).
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2012年第11期1718-1726,共9页 Advances in Psychological Science
基金 国家自然科学基金委青年基金项目(71001098) 北京市重点学科建设项目
关键词 决策 框架效应 图形表征 齐当别模型 不变性原则 decision making framing effect graph equate-to-differentiate approach axiom of invariance
  • 相关文献

参考文献44

  • 1Armstrong, L., & Marks, L. E. (1997). Stimulus context, perceived length, and the horizontal-vertical illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1200-1213.
  • 2Attneave, F., & Block, G. (1974). The time required to compare extents in various orientations. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 431-436.
  • 3Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  • 4Bonini, N., Tentori, K., & Rumiati, R. (2004). Contingent application of the cancellation editing operation: The role of semantic relatedness between risky outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 139-152.
  • 5Dehaene, S. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 557-566.
  • 6Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
  • 7Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., & Orban, G. A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 47-56.
  • 8Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2010). Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 11-20.
  • 9Hamilton, R., Hong, J. W., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 187-199.
  • 10Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton.

同被引文献145

引证文献15

二级引证文献129

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部