最优化决策风格包含最优化目标和最优化策略两维度,两者表现出不同的适应功能。目前研究常依据总均分或单独的维度得分进行分析,这种方法未能充分揭示最优化决策者的复杂性。本文基于动机视角分析了最优化两维度的区别和联系,并由此提...最优化决策风格包含最优化目标和最优化策略两维度,两者表现出不同的适应功能。目前研究常依据总均分或单独的维度得分进行分析,这种方法未能充分揭示最优化决策者的复杂性。本文基于动机视角分析了最优化两维度的区别和联系,并由此提出以人为中心的最优化四象限理论模型。该模型将决策者区分为混合型、目标型、策略型和非最优化四种类型。依据该模型,本文从情绪适应和社会消费行为适应两个角度梳理和论述了不同类型最优化者的适应功能。最后本文讨论了最优化四象限模型的理论与实践价值,并建议将来应从最优化的维度交互、以人为中心视角、纵向分析、影响因素和神经基础等方面进一步探索,以深化对不同最优化类型适应功能的理解。The maximization decision-making style includes two dimensions: the maximization goal and the maximization strategy, each exhibiting distinct adaptive functions. Most studies often rely on scores of the overall or the specific dimension, a method that fails to fully capture the complexity of maximizers. This review analyzes the differences and connections between the two dimensions of maximization from the perspective of motivation, leading to the proposal of a person-centered maximization four-quadrant model. This model categorizes decision-makers into four types: mixed-type, goal-oriented, strategy-oriented, and non-maximizers. Based on this model, this review analyzes the adaptive functions of different types of maximizers from the perspectives of emotional adaptation and social consumption behavior adaptation. Finally, this review discusses the theoretical and practical value of the maximization four-quadrant model, and suggests that it should be further explored from the aspects of dimensional interaction of maximization, person-centered perspective, longitudinal analysis, influencing factors and neurological foundations, to enhance understanding of adaptive functions of different types of maximizers.展开更多
目的:考察友谊选择最优化决策问卷(Maximizing in Selecting Friends Scale,MSFS)中文版的适用性。方法:对625名大学生(样本1)施测MSFS问卷,用于项目分析和探索性因素分析;对863名大学生(样本2)施测MSFS问卷,用于验证性因素分析和信度...目的:考察友谊选择最优化决策问卷(Maximizing in Selecting Friends Scale,MSFS)中文版的适用性。方法:对625名大学生(样本1)施测MSFS问卷,用于项目分析和探索性因素分析;对863名大学生(样本2)施测MSFS问卷,用于验证性因素分析和信度检验。同时,采用大学生一般完美主义量表、自尊量表和后悔量表进行效标效度检验。对样本2中的400名大学生间隔二周后再次施测,检验重测信度。结果:友谊选择最优化决策问卷包括15个项目,由决策困难、选项搜索和完美标准3个维度构成。验证性因素分析表明该问卷结构效度良好。MSFS总问卷及决策困难、选项搜索、完美标准的Cronbachα系数分别为0.88、0.88、0.85、0.77,两周后的重测信度分别为0.86、0.78、0.77、0.79。各维度及总分与追求高标准、在乎缺点、选择后悔、特质后悔以及后悔总分显著正相关,MSFS问卷总分、选项搜索以及决策困难维度与自尊显著负相关。结论:友谊选择最优化决策问卷具有较好的心理测量学特性。展开更多
文摘最优化决策风格包含最优化目标和最优化策略两维度,两者表现出不同的适应功能。目前研究常依据总均分或单独的维度得分进行分析,这种方法未能充分揭示最优化决策者的复杂性。本文基于动机视角分析了最优化两维度的区别和联系,并由此提出以人为中心的最优化四象限理论模型。该模型将决策者区分为混合型、目标型、策略型和非最优化四种类型。依据该模型,本文从情绪适应和社会消费行为适应两个角度梳理和论述了不同类型最优化者的适应功能。最后本文讨论了最优化四象限模型的理论与实践价值,并建议将来应从最优化的维度交互、以人为中心视角、纵向分析、影响因素和神经基础等方面进一步探索,以深化对不同最优化类型适应功能的理解。The maximization decision-making style includes two dimensions: the maximization goal and the maximization strategy, each exhibiting distinct adaptive functions. Most studies often rely on scores of the overall or the specific dimension, a method that fails to fully capture the complexity of maximizers. This review analyzes the differences and connections between the two dimensions of maximization from the perspective of motivation, leading to the proposal of a person-centered maximization four-quadrant model. This model categorizes decision-makers into four types: mixed-type, goal-oriented, strategy-oriented, and non-maximizers. Based on this model, this review analyzes the adaptive functions of different types of maximizers from the perspectives of emotional adaptation and social consumption behavior adaptation. Finally, this review discusses the theoretical and practical value of the maximization four-quadrant model, and suggests that it should be further explored from the aspects of dimensional interaction of maximization, person-centered perspective, longitudinal analysis, influencing factors and neurological foundations, to enhance understanding of adaptive functions of different types of maximizers.
文摘目的:考察友谊选择最优化决策问卷(Maximizing in Selecting Friends Scale,MSFS)中文版的适用性。方法:对625名大学生(样本1)施测MSFS问卷,用于项目分析和探索性因素分析;对863名大学生(样本2)施测MSFS问卷,用于验证性因素分析和信度检验。同时,采用大学生一般完美主义量表、自尊量表和后悔量表进行效标效度检验。对样本2中的400名大学生间隔二周后再次施测,检验重测信度。结果:友谊选择最优化决策问卷包括15个项目,由决策困难、选项搜索和完美标准3个维度构成。验证性因素分析表明该问卷结构效度良好。MSFS总问卷及决策困难、选项搜索、完美标准的Cronbachα系数分别为0.88、0.88、0.85、0.77,两周后的重测信度分别为0.86、0.78、0.77、0.79。各维度及总分与追求高标准、在乎缺点、选择后悔、特质后悔以及后悔总分显著正相关,MSFS问卷总分、选项搜索以及决策困难维度与自尊显著负相关。结论:友谊选择最优化决策问卷具有较好的心理测量学特性。
