摘要
决策是个体在日常生活中不可避免的重要活动,个体面对风险时如何决策是决策研究的主要对象,而维持现状偏差描述了一种在个体决策时经常出现的行为倾向,这种倾向使个体偏好那些能维持现状的选项。以往决策研究中个体差异对决策结果的影响,往往被看成是误差项而有意无意地忽略了,对于个体特质与决策的关系实证研究也比较少,目前已研究的个体差异变量主要有人格、认知能力、认知风格、年龄等。
应对方式作为个体差异的一个因素是指个体在面对挫折或压力时所采用的认知和行为方式。目前,关于应对方式与决策之间关系的研究较少,仅有的几篇文献也都集中在职业决策领域。卷入程度与决策关系虽有研究者关注,都仅仅考虑到了卷入程度这一情境性因素,而把处在情景中的决策者自身特征忽略掉了,所得结论也必然不能反映决策时的真实情况。本研究是在以往研究的基础上,考查个体在面临不同的决策任务(简单决策情境和连续决策情景)时,个体差异(应对方式)和情景性因素(卷入程度)对维持现状偏差的影响。考察不同应对方式的个体,在面对不同卷入程度的情景时,是否会表现出维持现状偏差。
本研究可分为三个部分。预备实验,筛选出供正式实验使用的决策情景。实验一采用决策研究中流行的情景案例配合问卷调查的方法,以一个模拟现实决策情景为决策任务,考察应对方式的不同和卷入程度的高低在简单决策情景中对维持现状偏差的影响。结果表明:应对方式对赞成维持现状的倾向程度有显著的主效应,应对方式和卷入程度两者的交互作用显著。实验二以一个模拟决策情景为决策任务,考察应对方式的不同和卷入程度的高低在连续决策情景中对维持现状偏差的影响。结果表明:连续决策情景中,应对方式对被试是否表现出维持现状偏差有非常显著的影响,积极应对者更倾向于改变现状;而卷入程度对维持现状偏差的影响不大,卷入程度的不同不能有效地预测被试是否维持现状。
Decision making is an important and unavoidable activity in our daily life,when an individual facing some risk scene ,how the decision is made is the main problem in decision making research .Status quo bias describes a behaviour tendency which occurs disproportionately often when individuals making their decisions,individuals under this influence will prefer to select a previously chosen alternative or a option which can maintain status quo.Early research about individual differences' influence to the decision result was ignored as some kind of errors.At the present time only few researches concern the relationship between individual differences and decision making:personality,cognition and age was involved in those researches as individual differences.
Coping style as one factor of individual differences was defined as "the adopted cognitive and behavioral style when facing setback or pressure",researches were that the relationship between coping style and decison making was not too thick,the few papers about this question were concentrated on the field of career decision making.Some researchers had studied the relationship between involvement and decision making indeed,but they didn't put the involvement and the coping style together to research their influence to decision making,thus their conclusion can't describe the reality of decision.
The present study is based on early researches,focus that people facing different decision mission(simple decision or sequential decision),how the individual differences(coping style) and situational factor influence on status quo bias.
Pretest:pick up two decision scene for formal study.Study 1 on questionnaire matching fabled decision scene method which is popular in decision making research,one fabled decision scene as the task,study how the individual differences(coping style) and situational factor(involvment) influence on status quo bias in simple decision.The result shows that coping style and involvement have significant interaction effect on objects' attitude to maintain the status quo.Study 2 on fabled decision scene as the task,study how the individual differences(coping style) and situational factor(involvment) influence on status quo bias in sequential decision.The result shows that status quo bias depend on the object's coping style is positive or negative,the level of involvement can't predict the status quo bias.
引文
[1]陈雪娜.自我与他人不同决策角色对偏好反转的诱发.华东师范大学硕士学位论文,上海,2008
[2]李广海,陈通.现代决策的基石:理性与有限理性研究述评.决策参考.2008,3
[3]饶俪琳,梁竹苑,李纾.决策行为中的后悔.心理科学. 2008,31(5):1185-1188
[4]沈静,姚本先.认知失调理论及其对当代教育的启示.现代教育科学.2006,5
[5]庄锦英.关于成本沉没效应的实验研究.应用心理学. 2005,11(1):41-44
[6]胡晓云.关于卷入度问题研究的追踪溯源,广告大观理论版,2006,1
[7]孔令跃.数学焦虑与数学成绩关系的研究.首都师范大学硕士学位论文,北京,2002
[8]李燕.受众的卷入程度对隐喻广告效果影响的实验研究.华中科技大学硕士学位论文,武汉,2006
[9]孙明遐,大学生消费决策及其影响因素的研究.南京师范大学硕士学位论文,南京,2005
[10]邵涵钰,动机氛围对行为式自我妨碍的影响.东北师范大学硕士学位论文,长春,2007
[11]卢丹蕾,王文忠等.高自我卷入条件下个人利益对态度的影响.中国临床心理学杂志.2007,15(4)
[12]王静.个人和团体任务情景中不同心理卷入强度对个体决策行为的影响.心理与行为研究,2007,5(1)
[13]米雅婷.预期后悔和卷入程度对购买决策中信息加工的影响研究.华中师范大学.武汉,2009
[14]李恒.大学生压力及其应对研究综述.科技信息.2007,9
[15]俞磊,应付的理论、研究思路和应用.心理科学,1994,3
[16]王玮,自我概念、应对方式、焦虑对大学毕业生职业生涯决策困难的影响研究.河北师范大学硕士学位论文.石家庄,2007
[17]王鹏飞,大学生职业决策困难及其应对方式研究.河南大学硕士学位论文.开封,2008
[18]薛朝霞等.大学生应对方式研究.护理研究,2005,17
[19]梁执群,卢莉.大学生应对方式的研究.山西医科大学学报,1999,02
[20]范瑞泉.广州某高校大学生心理压力、应对方式的特点及其与心理健康的关系研究.中山大学硕士学位论文.广州,2007
[1]Arkes H R, Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,1985, 35:124-140
[2]Akerlof G A, Dickens W T. The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. American Econnomic Review, 1982,72:907-319
[3]Bar-Hillel M & Neter E. Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets?.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.1996,70, 17-28
[4]Beatty,S.E,Smith,S.M;External search Effort;An investigator Across Several Product Categories.Journal of Consumer Research 14(1)(1987):83-95
[5]Bell D.E. Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Operations Research. 1982,30:961-981
[6]Camerer C. Three cheers-psychological,theoretical,empirical–for loss aversion.Journal of Marketing Research, 2005,42:129-134
[7]Carmon Z. & Ariely D. Focusing on the forgone: why value can appear so different to buyers and sellers.Journal of Consumer Research.2000,27, 360-370
[8]Celsi,Richard L.and Jerry .C.Olson.The role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.Journal of Consumer Reasearch.1988,15(2)
[9]Christopher J Anderson.The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision Avoidance Result From Reason and Emotion.Psychological Bulletin. 2003(129),No.1:139-167
[10]David Gal. A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Making. 2006,1(1):23-32
[11]Dhar R. The effect of decision st rategy on the decision to defer choice.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.1996,9(4):265-281
[12]Fdstinger L. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. 1957:3
[13]Harbert E.Krugman,The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,Public Option Quarterly,Vol 30,No.4,1966,p584
[14]Inman J & Zeelenberg M. Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: The attenuating role of decision justifiability. Journal of Consumer Research, 2002,29, 116-128
[15]John L.Lastovicka,Questioning the concept of involvement defined product classes.Advances in consumer research,1979,p174-179
[16]Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1979, 47 (2): 263~291
[17]Kahneman D, Tversky A.The Psychology of Preference.Scientific American.1982,246
[18]Kahneman D, and Tversky A. Choices, Values and Frames, American Psychologist, 1984,39: 341-350
[19]Kahneman D, Knetsch J L, Thaler R. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives.1991,5:193–206
[20]Kahneman D. A psychological perspective on economics. American Economic Review. 2003,93, 162-168
[21]H H Kassarjian,W M Kassarjian,Attitudes Under Low Commitment Conditions.Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes,Chicago:American Marketing Association.1979
[22]Kivetz R, Simonson I. Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Customer Preferences toward Frequency Program Rewards. Journal of Marketing Research.2002
[23]Lana Ritov. Status-Quo and Omission Biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,1992,5:49-61.
[24]Langer E. The Psychology of Control. Beverley Hills, CA:Sage Publications, 1983
[25]JL Lastovicka.Questioning the concept of involvement defined product classes. Advances in Consumer Research,1979
[26]Lauriola M, Levin I P. Personality traits and risky decision-making in a controlled experimental task: an exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 2001, 31: 215~226
[27]R.S.Lazarus,Folkman.Stress,appraisal and coping.New York:Springer,1984.
[28]Levin I P. Why do you and I make different decisions? Tracking individual differences in decision making. JDM Newsletter, 1999, XVIII(4): 5
[29]Luce M F.. Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1998,24,409-433
[30]MercèRoca, Robin M. Hogarth, A.John Maule. Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias. Risk Uncertainty. 2006,32:175-194
[31]Michael L.Rothschild,Marketing Communications in Nonbusiness Situations or Why It's so Hard to Sell Brotherhood Like Soap,Journal of Marketing,Vol.43,Spring 1979
[32]Novemsky N, Kahneman D. The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research. 2005,42:119-128
[33]Riis J , Schwarz, N. Status quo selection increases with consecutive emotionally difficult decisions. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Judgment andDecision Making, New Orleans, LA, 2000.12
[34]Rajagopal Raghunathan.All negative moods are not equal:Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1999,79(7):56-77
[35]Ritov I & Baron J. Status quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.1992,5, 49-62
[36]Simon H A. Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review ,1956,63: 129-138
[37]Stanovich K E,Sa W C,West R F. Individual differences in thinking,reasoning,and decision making.The Nature of Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, :375~409
[38]Thaler R.Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization ,1980,1: 39-60
[39]William Samuelson, Richard Zeckhauser. Status quo bias in dicision making.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1988,1: 7-59
[40]Peter Wright,The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology.1974,59(5)
[41]Zeelenberg,M. Anticipated Regret,Expected Feedback and Behavioral Decision Making.Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making.1999,12
