基于决策神经科学的从众与反从众行为研究：对比财产类决策和健康类决策情景
|
摘要
在与他人(群体)态度、看法或者行为相关的信息基础上,做出一致或者不一致性的决策行为,被称之为信息性从众决策或反从众决策,它是从众行为的一个基础表现形式。研究信息性从众行为的认知机制,对于从众行为研究具有重要的基础理论意义。另一方面,传统决策研究往往只关注与财产(数字表征)相关的情景,而现实生活中的很多决策并不与财产相关的,而是涉及生命、健康等主题(非数字表征)。将财产类决策和健康类决策进行对比,它们的决策情景不同,在从众信息的影响下,其表现也可能不同。通过这种对比,将有助于进一步解释信息性从众行为背后的深层次机制。基于此,本文重点对财产类和健康类两种情景下信息性从众决策进行对比研究。
回顾已有研究,围绕从众行为理论中有关信息性从众的研究进展,本文重点关注以下三个问题：(1)信息性从众决策是否存在一种稳定的认知机制?(2)如果存在一种稳定机制,其在财产类决策和健康类决策中,是如何表现出差异性的?(3)通过这种机制,对于财产类和健康类信息性从众决策,是否有优化决策的管理建议?我们选择股票购买决策作为财产类决策的代表,食品购买决策作为健康类决策的代表,在研究中考虑到性别、投资经验等因素,从行为科学层面和神经科学层面,通过四项研究对上述问题进行回答。
研究一通过问卷研究方式,对股票购买情境下基于财产信息的决策和食品购买情境下基于健康信息的从众决策进行研究,主要关注信息信任程度、从众程度、从众速度在两类决策类型下的差异,同时也考虑了性别因素对上述的影响。研究一是从行为学层面进行研究,是后续三个研究的基础。
研究二主要从决策神经科学的角度,通过事件相关脑电位(event-related potentials, ERPs)研究方法研究传统的财产相关的决策问题,即,对股票购买决策下,信息性从众和反从众行为的神经机制进行研究。通过把决策过程分为信息感知阶段、决策阶段和反馈阶段三个阶段,分析每个阶段对应的认知加工过程及其在决策中的意义；除此之外,还探讨了性别和投资经验等因素对上述决策过程的影响。
研究三和研究四通过ERPs研究方式研究非财产相关的健康决策问题,即,对食品购买决策下,信息性从众和反从众行为的神经机制进行研究。研究三主要针对决策过程的信息感知阶段,考察了人们对含有健康风险信息食品的感知,以及非传统信息性信号(食品口味)对上述信息加工的影响；研究四主要针对决策阶段和反馈阶段,研究信息性从众如何通过决策和反馈被进一步强化的过程。
通过整合四个研究,得出了以下研究结论：
(1)信息类别(财产类、健康类)和效价(正性、负性)影响信息的信任程度。健康信息的信任程度比财产信息的信任程度高,负性信息比正性信息的信任程度高。
(2)基于财产信息和健康信息的决策在从众程度、从众速度上存在差异。正性信息下,两类决策在从众程度、从众速度方面不存在差异；负性信息下,健康类决策从众程度更高,更倾向于马上进行决策。
(3)基于财产信息从众行为的神经机理可以由N400、错误相关负波(error related negativity, ERN)、反馈相关负波(feedback related negativity, FRN)、P300成分反映。股票购买决策情景下,信息感知和决策阶段,反从众的决策行为被监测到更大的冲突,由与冲突和自我控制相关的N400和ERN来反映；反馈阶段,从众和反从众行为对结果的评估存在差异,反从众行为更重视反馈结果,对结果情感反应更强烈,从众决策行为可以减缓个体经历强烈的情绪,由与情感和决策相关的FRN和P300来反映。
(4)基于健康信息从众行为的神经机理可以由N400、晚期正电位(late positive potential, LPP)、ERN、N400(FRN)成分反映。食品评估决策背景下,对于食品含有健康风险的信息会产生冲突,健康风险的类型不同,情绪反应不同,分别由N400和LPP反映；反从众行为比从众行为在决策阶段监测到更大的冲突,由ERN反映；反馈阶段,反从众行为对于不同反馈感知不同,从众行为则没有显著差异,由N400(FRN)反映。除此之外,食品物理信息(口味)影响健康风险信息的感知,反映在对N400振幅的调节上。
(5)性别对信息信任程度的影响表现在：女性比男性更相信健康信息,更不相信财产信息；但性别对信息性从众和反从众没有稳定显著性的影响。
(6)投资经验对股票购买决策中的信息性从众行为在行为科学层面有显著的影响,表现在没有经验的个体从众程度更高,更加激进冒险。
本文主要基于股票购买决策和食品购买决策对信息性从众行为从行为学层面和神经科学层面进行研究,其创新点主要表现在以下几个方面：
(1)弥补了不同决策背景下从众行为对比研究的不足。已有对从众行为的研究主要集中在不同的学科领域的纵向研究,而对学科领域之间的横向研究非常少。本文对财产类决策(股票购买决策)和健康类决策(食品购买决策)中的从众效应进行了对比研究,弥补了上述漏洞,并且建议政府等相关部门关注负性健康信息,因信息信任和传播可能给社会带来恐慌或不稳定性,在资源有限的情况下优先处理这类信息性从众。
(2)借助ERPs实验研究方式,从神经科学的角度解释了从众效应存在的原因。前人对从众的原因主要从群体压力、信息不对称性等角度进行分析,对反从众主要从求异需求方面进行解释,然而这些解释都是主观的描述性解释。本文从神经科学的角度对此进行了研究,发现从众效应出现的原因在于个体执行反从众行为会感知到冲突,因此个体必须付出一定的认知资源和注意力去克服冲突才能实现反从众行为,所以一般情况下从众程度远远大于反从众程度。
(3)发现从众和反从众行为之后对行为结果的评估上存在差异,并给出了神经科学层面的依据。已有关于从众反从众行为的研究主要从定义、动机和影响因素三个方面进行研究,极少研究从众或者反从众行为之后对结果的评估。本研究借助ERPs实验手段,发现个体在执行从众和反从众行为之后,对反馈结果的主观评估存在差异,从众行为能够减缓个体对负性反馈结果的情感反应,而反从众行为之后则更重视结果,情感反应较强烈。
(4)发现食品口味能够调节健康风险信息中N400的振幅,为N400的研究提供了新视角。已有N400的研究主要关注词语之间或者词汇与语境之间的匹配性,主要反映不匹配或者冲突。在本文中,食品和含有健康风险之间因为词汇与语境存在冲突,诱发了N400成分,然而食品的口味因素能够调节N400成分,这对N400的研究是一个新的视角。这是本文的第四个创新点。
Based on the information of attitudes, beliefs or behavior of others (groups), individuals make decisions consistent or inconsisitent with the information, which is called informational conformity or counter-conformity. They are basic forms of conformity behavior or conuter-conformity behavior. It is very important for basic theory development to study the cognitive mechanism of informational conformity and counter-conformity. On the other hand, traditional decision researches tend to focus on property-related decision which can be represented by figure characterization. However, in the real word, a lot of decisions are not related with property but related with life, health and so on (non-figure characterization). Comparing with property-related decisions and health-related decisions, the informational conformity would have difference, since the information of conformity is different. From the comparision, it will help to further explain and understand the deep-seated mechanism of informational conformity. Thi thesis focuses on the comparision of informational conformity and counter-conformity with two different scenarios of property-related decisions and health related decisions. In this study, we select the purchase of stocks as a typical case of property-related decisions and food-buying decision as a typical case of health-related decisions.
In order to promote the study of conformity behavior, we review the existing researches and propose the following three research questions.(1) Is there a stable cognitive mechanism of informational conformity?(2) If there is a stable cognitive mechanism, are there any differences on informational conformity behavior between property-related decision making and health-related decision making, and how to present these differences?(3) From this mechanism, are there any suggestions to optimize decision making for property-related informational conformity and health-related informational conformity? We select the stock-buying decision and food-buying decision as typical cases of property-related decisions health-related decisions, respectively. In this study, we take gender, investment experience and other factors in to account on the effect of conformity. To answer these questions, we design and complete four studies.
Study1uses questionnaire to investigate the decisions based on property-related or health-related information under the background of purchasing stocks or foods. It focuses on the differences of trust level of information, conformity extent and the decision making speed in the two types of decisions. In addition, it takes the gender factor into account. Study1is focused on the behavioral results and is the basis for the subsequent three studies.
Study2, from the perspective of decision neuroscience, uses ERPs (event-related potentials) experiment method to study the neural mechanisms of informational conformity and counter-conformity in the purchase of stock decision. We divide the decision-making process into three stages:information perception, decision-making and the outcome evaluation stage. In addition, we consider the influences of gender and investment experience.
Study3and study4use ERPs research method to study the neural mechanisms of informational conformity and counter-conformity in the purchase of food decision. Study3focuses on the information perception stage, and investigates the perception of food with health risk information and the effect of food tastes on the perception. Study4focuses on neural mechanisms of informational conformity in the decision-making stage and the outcome evaluation stage.
We integrate the four studies and reach six conclusions as follows:
(1) Information category (property-related and health-related) and valence (positive and negative) influence trust level of information. The trust level of health-related information is higher than that of property-related information. Negative information wins more trust than positive information.
(2) With regard to conformity extent and decision-making speed, there are differences between decision based on property information and decision based on health information. When the valence of information is positive, there are no differences between two types of decision making on conformity extent and decision-making speed. When the valence of information is negative, higher conformity extent and faster decision-making speed are observed towards the decision based on health information than that based on property information.
(3) The neural mechanism of conformity behavior based on property information can be reflected by N400, error related negativity (ERN), feedback related negativity (FRN) and P300component. In the decision of stock purchase, people with counter-conformity behavior perceives and monitors more conflict than people with conformity behavior in the information perception stage and decision making stage, which are reflected by N400and ERN. In the outcome evaluation stage, there are differences in evaluation of outcome between conformity and counter-conformity behavior. Counter-conformity individuals pay more attention to the outcome, and have stronger emotional response to it; Conformity behavior can attenuate individual emotional experience, which is reflected by FRN and P300.
(4) The neural mechanism of conformity behavior based on health information can be reflected by N400, late positive potential (LPP), ERN and N400(FRN). In the background of food evaluation or purchase, there are conflicts in the perception of food with health risk information, and different kinds of health risk elicit different emotional response, which are reflected by N400and LPP. In the decision-making stage, people with counter-conformity behavior monitor more conflicts than conformity, which is reflected by ERN component. In the outcome evaluation stage, different kinds of feedback are perceived differently for counter-conformity behavior, but not for conformity behavior, which is reflected by N400(FRN). In addition, food physical information (taste) affects perception of health risk information, which modulates the amplitude of N400component.
(5) Gender has effect on the trust level of information. Compared with male, female trust health information more, but trust property information less. However, gender has no stable significant effect on informational conformity and counter-conformity effect.
(6) Investment experience has significant effects on informational conformity in the behavioral level. Individuals with no investment experience have higher conformity extent, and are more risk-seeking.
This paper is mainly based on stock-buying decision making and food-buying decision making in order to study informational conformity from both behavioral and neural level. There are several innovative points as follows.
(1) This study fills the blank of comparative research on conformity behavior under different decision-making scenarios. Previous studies on conformity are performed mainly in different academic fields, with few researches across them. This paper compares conformity effect in property-related decisions (stock-buying decision making) with health-related decisions (food-buying decision making), which bridges the gap. It suggests that relevant government departments pay more attention on negative health information and give high priority to put limited recourses to deal with such problems, because negative health information is more likely to cause panic or instability to the society.
(2) This study uses ERPs experimental research method to explain the existence of conformity effect from the perspective of neuroscience. Previous researches on the reasons of conformity have been focused on group pressure, information asymmetry and so on; and counter-conformity has been explained by the need for uniqueness. But these interpretations are subjective descriptive explanations. This study integrates neuroscience perspective and finds that conformity effect is induced since individuals perceive conflict when conducting counter-conformity behavior. Therefore, the individuals should pay a certain amount of cognitive resources and attention to overcoming the conflict in order to achieve counter-conformity. Thus generally, the degree of conformity is greater than that of counter-conformity.
(3) This study observes the differences on the evaluation of feedback outcomes after conducting conformity behavior and counter-conformity behavior, and provides evidences from neuroscience perspective. Previous studies on conformity and counter-conformity mainly focus on their definition, motivation and influence factors. Few researches are done on evaluating the outcome after conformity and counter-conformity behavior. The study uses ERPs experimental method and shows differences in subjective evaluation of the feedback towards conformity and counter-conformity behavior. Conformity behavior can attenuate individual emotional experience for negative outcome, while counter-conformity behavior gives rise to the likelihood of more attention towards the outcome, and elicits stronger emotional response to the outcome.
(4) This study suggests that food taste modulates the amplitude of N400elicited by health risk information, which provides an interesting insight into N400component. Previous researches on N400mainly focus on match between words or between words and contexts. And N400primarily reflects mismatch or conflict. In this study, N400is evoked by the conflict between food and health risk, but food taste can modulate N400component, which is a new insight into N400.
回顾已有研究,围绕从众行为理论中有关信息性从众的研究进展,本文重点关注以下三个问题：(1)信息性从众决策是否存在一种稳定的认知机制?(2)如果存在一种稳定机制,其在财产类决策和健康类决策中,是如何表现出差异性的?(3)通过这种机制,对于财产类和健康类信息性从众决策,是否有优化决策的管理建议?我们选择股票购买决策作为财产类决策的代表,食品购买决策作为健康类决策的代表,在研究中考虑到性别、投资经验等因素,从行为科学层面和神经科学层面,通过四项研究对上述问题进行回答。
研究一通过问卷研究方式,对股票购买情境下基于财产信息的决策和食品购买情境下基于健康信息的从众决策进行研究,主要关注信息信任程度、从众程度、从众速度在两类决策类型下的差异,同时也考虑了性别因素对上述的影响。研究一是从行为学层面进行研究,是后续三个研究的基础。
研究二主要从决策神经科学的角度,通过事件相关脑电位(event-related potentials, ERPs)研究方法研究传统的财产相关的决策问题,即,对股票购买决策下,信息性从众和反从众行为的神经机制进行研究。通过把决策过程分为信息感知阶段、决策阶段和反馈阶段三个阶段,分析每个阶段对应的认知加工过程及其在决策中的意义；除此之外,还探讨了性别和投资经验等因素对上述决策过程的影响。
研究三和研究四通过ERPs研究方式研究非财产相关的健康决策问题,即,对食品购买决策下,信息性从众和反从众行为的神经机制进行研究。研究三主要针对决策过程的信息感知阶段,考察了人们对含有健康风险信息食品的感知,以及非传统信息性信号(食品口味)对上述信息加工的影响；研究四主要针对决策阶段和反馈阶段,研究信息性从众如何通过决策和反馈被进一步强化的过程。
通过整合四个研究,得出了以下研究结论：
(1)信息类别(财产类、健康类)和效价(正性、负性)影响信息的信任程度。健康信息的信任程度比财产信息的信任程度高,负性信息比正性信息的信任程度高。
(2)基于财产信息和健康信息的决策在从众程度、从众速度上存在差异。正性信息下,两类决策在从众程度、从众速度方面不存在差异；负性信息下,健康类决策从众程度更高,更倾向于马上进行决策。
(3)基于财产信息从众行为的神经机理可以由N400、错误相关负波(error related negativity, ERN)、反馈相关负波(feedback related negativity, FRN)、P300成分反映。股票购买决策情景下,信息感知和决策阶段,反从众的决策行为被监测到更大的冲突,由与冲突和自我控制相关的N400和ERN来反映；反馈阶段,从众和反从众行为对结果的评估存在差异,反从众行为更重视反馈结果,对结果情感反应更强烈,从众决策行为可以减缓个体经历强烈的情绪,由与情感和决策相关的FRN和P300来反映。
(4)基于健康信息从众行为的神经机理可以由N400、晚期正电位(late positive potential, LPP)、ERN、N400(FRN)成分反映。食品评估决策背景下,对于食品含有健康风险的信息会产生冲突,健康风险的类型不同,情绪反应不同,分别由N400和LPP反映；反从众行为比从众行为在决策阶段监测到更大的冲突,由ERN反映；反馈阶段,反从众行为对于不同反馈感知不同,从众行为则没有显著差异,由N400(FRN)反映。除此之外,食品物理信息(口味)影响健康风险信息的感知,反映在对N400振幅的调节上。
(5)性别对信息信任程度的影响表现在：女性比男性更相信健康信息,更不相信财产信息；但性别对信息性从众和反从众没有稳定显著性的影响。
(6)投资经验对股票购买决策中的信息性从众行为在行为科学层面有显著的影响,表现在没有经验的个体从众程度更高,更加激进冒险。
本文主要基于股票购买决策和食品购买决策对信息性从众行为从行为学层面和神经科学层面进行研究,其创新点主要表现在以下几个方面：
(1)弥补了不同决策背景下从众行为对比研究的不足。已有对从众行为的研究主要集中在不同的学科领域的纵向研究,而对学科领域之间的横向研究非常少。本文对财产类决策(股票购买决策)和健康类决策(食品购买决策)中的从众效应进行了对比研究,弥补了上述漏洞,并且建议政府等相关部门关注负性健康信息,因信息信任和传播可能给社会带来恐慌或不稳定性,在资源有限的情况下优先处理这类信息性从众。
(2)借助ERPs实验研究方式,从神经科学的角度解释了从众效应存在的原因。前人对从众的原因主要从群体压力、信息不对称性等角度进行分析,对反从众主要从求异需求方面进行解释,然而这些解释都是主观的描述性解释。本文从神经科学的角度对此进行了研究,发现从众效应出现的原因在于个体执行反从众行为会感知到冲突,因此个体必须付出一定的认知资源和注意力去克服冲突才能实现反从众行为,所以一般情况下从众程度远远大于反从众程度。
(3)发现从众和反从众行为之后对行为结果的评估上存在差异,并给出了神经科学层面的依据。已有关于从众反从众行为的研究主要从定义、动机和影响因素三个方面进行研究,极少研究从众或者反从众行为之后对结果的评估。本研究借助ERPs实验手段,发现个体在执行从众和反从众行为之后,对反馈结果的主观评估存在差异,从众行为能够减缓个体对负性反馈结果的情感反应,而反从众行为之后则更重视结果,情感反应较强烈。
(4)发现食品口味能够调节健康风险信息中N400的振幅,为N400的研究提供了新视角。已有N400的研究主要关注词语之间或者词汇与语境之间的匹配性,主要反映不匹配或者冲突。在本文中,食品和含有健康风险之间因为词汇与语境存在冲突,诱发了N400成分,然而食品的口味因素能够调节N400成分,这对N400的研究是一个新的视角。这是本文的第四个创新点。
Based on the information of attitudes, beliefs or behavior of others (groups), individuals make decisions consistent or inconsisitent with the information, which is called informational conformity or counter-conformity. They are basic forms of conformity behavior or conuter-conformity behavior. It is very important for basic theory development to study the cognitive mechanism of informational conformity and counter-conformity. On the other hand, traditional decision researches tend to focus on property-related decision which can be represented by figure characterization. However, in the real word, a lot of decisions are not related with property but related with life, health and so on (non-figure characterization). Comparing with property-related decisions and health-related decisions, the informational conformity would have difference, since the information of conformity is different. From the comparision, it will help to further explain and understand the deep-seated mechanism of informational conformity. Thi thesis focuses on the comparision of informational conformity and counter-conformity with two different scenarios of property-related decisions and health related decisions. In this study, we select the purchase of stocks as a typical case of property-related decisions and food-buying decision as a typical case of health-related decisions.
In order to promote the study of conformity behavior, we review the existing researches and propose the following three research questions.(1) Is there a stable cognitive mechanism of informational conformity?(2) If there is a stable cognitive mechanism, are there any differences on informational conformity behavior between property-related decision making and health-related decision making, and how to present these differences?(3) From this mechanism, are there any suggestions to optimize decision making for property-related informational conformity and health-related informational conformity? We select the stock-buying decision and food-buying decision as typical cases of property-related decisions health-related decisions, respectively. In this study, we take gender, investment experience and other factors in to account on the effect of conformity. To answer these questions, we design and complete four studies.
Study1uses questionnaire to investigate the decisions based on property-related or health-related information under the background of purchasing stocks or foods. It focuses on the differences of trust level of information, conformity extent and the decision making speed in the two types of decisions. In addition, it takes the gender factor into account. Study1is focused on the behavioral results and is the basis for the subsequent three studies.
Study2, from the perspective of decision neuroscience, uses ERPs (event-related potentials) experiment method to study the neural mechanisms of informational conformity and counter-conformity in the purchase of stock decision. We divide the decision-making process into three stages:information perception, decision-making and the outcome evaluation stage. In addition, we consider the influences of gender and investment experience.
Study3and study4use ERPs research method to study the neural mechanisms of informational conformity and counter-conformity in the purchase of food decision. Study3focuses on the information perception stage, and investigates the perception of food with health risk information and the effect of food tastes on the perception. Study4focuses on neural mechanisms of informational conformity in the decision-making stage and the outcome evaluation stage.
We integrate the four studies and reach six conclusions as follows:
(1) Information category (property-related and health-related) and valence (positive and negative) influence trust level of information. The trust level of health-related information is higher than that of property-related information. Negative information wins more trust than positive information.
(2) With regard to conformity extent and decision-making speed, there are differences between decision based on property information and decision based on health information. When the valence of information is positive, there are no differences between two types of decision making on conformity extent and decision-making speed. When the valence of information is negative, higher conformity extent and faster decision-making speed are observed towards the decision based on health information than that based on property information.
(3) The neural mechanism of conformity behavior based on property information can be reflected by N400, error related negativity (ERN), feedback related negativity (FRN) and P300component. In the decision of stock purchase, people with counter-conformity behavior perceives and monitors more conflict than people with conformity behavior in the information perception stage and decision making stage, which are reflected by N400and ERN. In the outcome evaluation stage, there are differences in evaluation of outcome between conformity and counter-conformity behavior. Counter-conformity individuals pay more attention to the outcome, and have stronger emotional response to it; Conformity behavior can attenuate individual emotional experience, which is reflected by FRN and P300.
(4) The neural mechanism of conformity behavior based on health information can be reflected by N400, late positive potential (LPP), ERN and N400(FRN). In the background of food evaluation or purchase, there are conflicts in the perception of food with health risk information, and different kinds of health risk elicit different emotional response, which are reflected by N400and LPP. In the decision-making stage, people with counter-conformity behavior monitor more conflicts than conformity, which is reflected by ERN component. In the outcome evaluation stage, different kinds of feedback are perceived differently for counter-conformity behavior, but not for conformity behavior, which is reflected by N400(FRN). In addition, food physical information (taste) affects perception of health risk information, which modulates the amplitude of N400component.
(5) Gender has effect on the trust level of information. Compared with male, female trust health information more, but trust property information less. However, gender has no stable significant effect on informational conformity and counter-conformity effect.
(6) Investment experience has significant effects on informational conformity in the behavioral level. Individuals with no investment experience have higher conformity extent, and are more risk-seeking.
This paper is mainly based on stock-buying decision making and food-buying decision making in order to study informational conformity from both behavioral and neural level. There are several innovative points as follows.
(1) This study fills the blank of comparative research on conformity behavior under different decision-making scenarios. Previous studies on conformity are performed mainly in different academic fields, with few researches across them. This paper compares conformity effect in property-related decisions (stock-buying decision making) with health-related decisions (food-buying decision making), which bridges the gap. It suggests that relevant government departments pay more attention on negative health information and give high priority to put limited recourses to deal with such problems, because negative health information is more likely to cause panic or instability to the society.
(2) This study uses ERPs experimental research method to explain the existence of conformity effect from the perspective of neuroscience. Previous researches on the reasons of conformity have been focused on group pressure, information asymmetry and so on; and counter-conformity has been explained by the need for uniqueness. But these interpretations are subjective descriptive explanations. This study integrates neuroscience perspective and finds that conformity effect is induced since individuals perceive conflict when conducting counter-conformity behavior. Therefore, the individuals should pay a certain amount of cognitive resources and attention to overcoming the conflict in order to achieve counter-conformity. Thus generally, the degree of conformity is greater than that of counter-conformity.
(3) This study observes the differences on the evaluation of feedback outcomes after conducting conformity behavior and counter-conformity behavior, and provides evidences from neuroscience perspective. Previous studies on conformity and counter-conformity mainly focus on their definition, motivation and influence factors. Few researches are done on evaluating the outcome after conformity and counter-conformity behavior. The study uses ERPs experimental method and shows differences in subjective evaluation of the feedback towards conformity and counter-conformity behavior. Conformity behavior can attenuate individual emotional experience for negative outcome, while counter-conformity behavior gives rise to the likelihood of more attention towards the outcome, and elicits stronger emotional response to the outcome.
(4) This study suggests that food taste modulates the amplitude of N400elicited by health risk information, which provides an interesting insight into N400component. Previous researches on N400mainly focus on match between words or between words and contexts. And N400primarily reflects mismatch or conflict. In this study, N400is evoked by the conflict between food and health risk, but food taste can modulate N400component, which is a new insight into N400.
引文
[1]Allen, V. Situational factors in conformity. Advances in experimental social psychology,1965,2,133-170.
[2]Aspara, J. & Tikkanen, H. Corporate marketing in the stock market:The impact of company identification on individuals' investment behaviour. European Journal of marketing,2011,45(9/10),1446-1469.
[3]Bearden, W. O. & Etzel, M. J. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,1982,183-194.
[4]Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H. & Anderson, S. W. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 1994,50(1),7-15.
[5]Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. & Damasio, A. R. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy, science,1997,275(5304),1293-1295.
[6]Beck, U. & Willms, J. Freiheit oder Kapitalismus:Gesellschaft neu denken. German:Suhrkamp,2000.
[7]Bennett, J. A. & Sias, R. W. Can money flows predict stock returns? Financial Analysts Journal,2001,64-77.
[8]Bettman, J. R. Perceived Risk and Its Components:A Model and Empirical Test. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1973,10(2).
[9]Bettman, J. R. & Park, C. W. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes:A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research,1980,7(3),234.
[10]Bikhchandani, S. & Sharma, S. Herd behavior in financial markets:A review. IMF Working Pare,2000.
[11]Bond, R. & Smith, P. B. Culture and conformity:A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b,1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin,1996, 119(1),111.
[12]Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological review,2001,108(3), 624.
[13]Brand, M. & Altstotter-Gleich, C. Personality and decision-making in laboratory gambling tasks-Evidence for a relationship between deciding advantageously under risk conditions and perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 2008,45(3),226-231.
[14]Brooker, G. An assessment of an expanded measure of perceived risk. Advances in consumer research,1984,11(1).
[15]Burns, D. J. & Warren, H. B. Need for uniqueness:shopping mall preference and choice activity. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,1995, 23(12),4-12.
[16]Buzby, J. C., Skees, J. R. & Ready, R. C. Using contingent valuation to value food safety:a case study of grapefruit and pesticide residues. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition (1995), Westview Press,1995.
[17]Cacioppo, J. T., Crites, S. L. & Gardner, W. L. Attitudes to the right:Evaluative processing is associated with lateralized late positive event-related brain potentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1996,22(12),1205-1219.
[18]Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D. & Cohen, J. D. Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance, science,1998,280(5364),747-749.
[19]Caswell, J. A. & Padberg, D. I. Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1992,74(2),460-468.
[20]Caswell, J. A. & Mojduszka, E. M. Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1996,78(5),1248-1253.
[21]Cella, M., Dymond, S., Cooper, A. & Turnbull, O. Effects of decision-phase time constraints on emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and cognition,2007,64(2),164-169.
[22]Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Dai, S., Wang, X. & Shu, L. The Neural and Psychological Basis of Herding in Purchasing Books Online:An Event-Related Potential Study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,2010a, 13(3),321-328.
[23]Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X. & Shu, L. Cognitive and emotional conflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online:An event-related potentials study. Biological psychology,2010b,85(3),437-445.
[24]Chen, R. & He, F. Examination of brand knowledge, perceived risk and consumers' intention to adopt an online retailer. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,2003,14(6),677-693.
[25]Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence:Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.,2004,55,591-621.
[26]Coles, M. G. H., Scheffers, M. K. & Holroyd, C. B. Why is there an ERN/Ne on correct trials? Response representations, stimulus-related components, and the theory of error-processing. Biological psychology,2001,56(3),173-189.
[27]Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H. & Wadsworth, M. E. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 2001,127(1),87.
[28]Cox, A. D., Cox, D. & Zimet, G. Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. Journal of marketing,2006,70(1),79-91.
[29]Cox, D. F. Risk handling in consumer behavior-an intensive study of two cases. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,1967,34-81.
[30]Cunningham, S. M. The major dimensions of perceived risk. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,1967,82-108.
[31]Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N. & Lang, P. J. Brain potentials in affective picture processing:covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological psychology,2000,52(2),95-111.
[32]Damasio, A. R. Descartes'error:Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York:Putnam,1994,352.
[33]Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. & Subrahmanyam, A. Investor psychology and security market under-and overreactions. The journal of finance,1998,53(6), 1839-1885.
[34]De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R. J., De Wit, W. & Timmers, J. Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety:an exploratory study. British Food Journal,2004,106(10/11),837-849.
[35]Debruille, J.B. The N400 potential could index a semantic inhibition. Brain Research Reviews,2007,56(2), 472-477.
[36]DeCanio, S. J. Rational Expectations and Learning from Experience*. The quarterly journal of economics,1979,93(1),47-57.
[37]Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I. & Tucker, D. M. Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science,1994,5(5),303-305.
[38]DeLong, J. B. Noise trader risk in financial markets.1989.
[39]Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J. & DeDonno, M. A. Intelligence, but not emotional intelligence, predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Intelligence,2010, 38(2),249-254.
[40]Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology,1955,51(3),629.
[41]Dholakia, U. M. A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of marketing,2001,35(11/12), 1340-1362.
[42]Dickson, G. C., Kerr, E. & Steele, J. Introduction to insurance. Macdonald and Evans,1984.
[43]Dizney, H. F. & Roskens, R. W. An Investigation of the" Bandwagon Effect" in a College Straw Election. The Journal of Educational Sociology,1962,108-114.
[44]Effinger, M. R. & Polborn, M. K. Herding and anti-herding:A model of reputational differentiation. European Economic Review,2001,45(3),385-403.
[45]Fagley, N., Coleman, J. G. & Simon, A. F. Effects of framing, perspective taking, and perspective (affective focus) on choice. Personality and Individual Differences,2010,48(3),264-269.
[46]Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J. & Blanke, L. Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. Ⅱ. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology,1991,78(6), 447-455.
[47]Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., Christ, S. & Hohnsbein, J. ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance:a tutorial. Biological psychology, 2000,51(2),87-107.
[48]Flykt, A. & Caldara, R. Tracking fear in snake and spider fearful participants during visual search:A multi-response domain study. Cognition and Emotion, 2006,20(8),1075-1091.
[49]Fox, E., Russo, R. & Dutton, K. Attentional bias for threat:Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion,2002,16(3), 355-379.
[50]Garbarino, E. & Strahilevitz, M. Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research,2004,57(7),768-775.
[51]Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J. & Bardes, J. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk analysis, 2004,24(1),185-194.
[52]Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E. & Donchin, E. A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science,1993,4(6), 385.
[53]Gehring, W. J., Himle, J. & Nisenson, L. G. Action-monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychological Science,2000,11(1),1.
[54]Gehring, W. J. & Willoughby, A. R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. science,2002,295(5563),2279-2282.
[55]Guercio, D. D. & Tkac, P. A. The determinants of the flow of funds of managed portfolios:Mutual funds vs. pension funds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,2002,37(04),523-557.
[56]Hajcak, G., Holroyd, C. B., Moser, J. S. & Simons, R. F. Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. Psychophysiology,2005,42(2),161-170.
[57]Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B. & Simons, R. F. The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological psychology,2006,71(2),148-154.
[58]Hartog, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. & Jonker, N. Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos,2002,55(1),3-26.
[59]Herrmann, M. J., R mmler, J., Ehlis, A. C., Heidrich, A. & Fallgatter, A. J. Source localization (LORETA) of the error-related-negativity (ERN/Ne) and positivity (Pe). Cognitive Brain Research,2004,20(2),294-299.
[60]Hewig, J., Trippe, R., Hecht, H., Coles, M. G. H., Holroyd, C. B. & Miltner, W. H. R. Decision-making in blackjack:an electrophysiological analysis. Cerebral Cortex,2007,17(4),865.
[61]Hirshleifer, D. & Shumway, T. Good day sunshine:Stock returns and the weather. The journal of finance,2003,58(3),1009-1032.
[62]Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J. & Coles, M. G. Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements:evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neuroscience letters,1998a,242(2),65-68.
[63]Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J. & Coles, M. G. H. Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements:Evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neuroscience letters,1998b,242(2),65-68.
[64]Holroyd, C. B. & Coles, M. G. The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological review,2002,109(4),679.
[65]Hornibrook, S. A., McCarthy, M. & Fearne, A. Consumers' perception of risk: the case of beef purchases in Irish supermarkets. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,2005,33(10),701-715.
[66]Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J. & McKimmie, B. M. On being loud and proud:Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology,2003,42(3),319-335.
[67]Insko, C. A., Drenan, S., Solomon, M. R., Smith, R. & Wade, T. J. Conformity as a function of the consistency of positive self-evaluation with being liked and being right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1983,19(4),341-358.
[68]Ito, T. A. & Cacioppo, J. T. Electrophysiological evidence of implicit and explicit categorization processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2000,36(6),660-676.
[69]Jacoby, J. & Kaplan, L. B. The components of perceived risk. Advances in consumer research,1972,3(3),382-383.
[70]Jou, J., Shanteau, J. & Harris, R. J. An information processing view of framing effects:The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 1996,24(1),1-15.
[71]Jungermann, H., Pfister, H. R. & Fischer, K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk analysis,1996,16(2),251-261.
[72]Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,1979,263-291.
[73]Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. & Sarin, R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economoic,1997(112),375-406.
[74]Kassarjian, H. H. Personality and consumer behavior:A review. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1971,8(4).
[75]Keswani, A. & Stolin, D. Which money is smart? Mutual fund buys and sells of individual and institutional investors. The journal of finance,2008,63(1), 85-118.
[76]Kim, H. & Markus, H. R. Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology,1999,77(4),785.
[77]Kim, H., Shimojo, S. & O'Doherty, J. P. Overlapping responses for the expectation of juice and money rewards in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex,2011,21(4),769-776.
[78]Knight, F. H. Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York:Hart, Schaffner and Marx, 1921.
[79]Knutson, B. & Cooper, J. C. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of reward prediction. Current opinion in neurology,2005,18(4),411-417.
[80]Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D. & Loewenstein, G. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron,2007,53(1),147-156.
[81]Knutson, B. & Greer, S. M. Anticipatory affect:neural correlates and consequences for choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,2008,363(1511),3771-3786.
[82]Knutson, B., Samanez-Larkin, G. R. & Kuhnen, C. M. Gain and loss learning differentially contribute to life financial outcomes. PLoS One,2011,6(9), e24390.
[83]Kok, A. Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources:a review and synthesis. Biological psychology,1997,45(1),19-56.
[84]Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity, science,1980,207(4427),203-205.
[85]Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences,2000,4(12),463-470.
[86]Leng, Y. & Zhou, X. Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship:an ERP study. Neuropsychologia,2010,48(2), 448-455.
[87]Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1),146.
[88]Leventhal, H.,Leventhal, E. A. & Contrada, R. J. Self-regulation, health, and behavior:A perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychology and Health,1998,13(4), 717-733.
[89]Levy, G. Anti-herding and strategic consultation. European Economic Review, 2004,48(3),503-525.
[90]Lewicki, R. J. & Bunker, B. B. Trust in relationships:A model of development and decline. San Francisco, CA, US:Jossey-Bass,1995.
[91]Li, J. J. & Su, C. How face influences consumption:a comparative study of American and Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 2007,49(2),237.
[92]Li, P., Jia, S., Feng, T., Liu, Q., Suo, T. & Li, H. The influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect on outcome evaluations:Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study. Neuroimage,2010,52(4),1727-1733.
[93]Lifshitz, K. The averaged evoked cortical response to complex visual stimuli. Psychophysiology,1966,3(1),55-68.
[94]Lobb, A. Consumer trust, risk and food safety:A review. Food Economics-Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C,2005,2(1),3-12.
[95]Loewenstein, G. Out of control:Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1996,65(3),272-292.
[96]Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin,2001,127(2),267.
[97]Lopes, L. L. & Oden, G. C. The role of aspiration level in risky choice:A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of mathematical psychology,1999,43(2),286-313.
[98]Lopez-Nicolas, C. & Molina-Castillo, F. J. Customer Knowledge Management and E-commerce:The role of customer perceived risk. International Journal of Information Management,2008,28(2),102-113.
[99]Luck, S. J. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambrige Mass:MIT press,2005.
[100]Ma, Q., Wang, X., Shu, L. & Dai, S. P300 and categorization in brand extension. Neuroscience letters,2008,431(1),57-61.
[101]Ma, Q., Meng, L., Wang, L. & Shen, Q. I endeavor to make it:Effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward. Behavioural brain research,2014,261, 1-7.
[102]Mahon, D. & Cowan, C. Irish consumers'perception of food safety risk in minced beef. British Food Journal,2004,106(4),301-312.
[103]Mathalon, D. H., Roach, B. J. & Ford, J. M. Automatic semantic priming abnormalities in schizophrenia. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2010, 75(2),157-166.
[104]Mazumdar, T. A value based orientation to new product planning. Journal of Consumer Marketing,1993,10(1),28-41.
[105]Merkhofer, M. W. Decision science and social risk management:A comparative evaluation of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and other formal decision-aiding approaches. Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Company,1987.
[106]Michihiro, K. & Rob, R. Bandwagon effects and long run technology choice. Games and Economic Behavior,1998,22(1),30-60.
[107]Miltner, W. H., Braun, C. H. & Coles, M. G. Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task:Evidence for a "generic" neural system for error detection. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,1997,9(6), 788-798.
[108]Miltner, W. H. R., Brauer, J., Hecht, H., Trippe, R. & Coles, M. G. H. Parallel brain activity for self-generated and observed errors. Errors, conflicts, and the brain Current opinions on performance monitoring,2004,124-129.
[109]Murray, K. B. A test of services marketing theory:consumer information acquisition activities. The Journal of Marketing,1991,10-25.
[110]Nakamura, C. Y. Conformity and problem solving. The journal of abnormal and social psychology,1958,56(3),315.
[111]Neumann von J, M. O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1944.
[112]Nieuwenhuis, S., Holroyd, C. B., Mol, N. & Coles, M. G. Reinforcement-related brain potentials from medial frontal cortex:origins and functional significance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,2004,28(4), 441-448.
[113]Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G. & Cohen, J. D. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus--norepinephrine system. Psychological bulletin,2005,131(4), 510.
[114]Nobre, A. C. & Mccarthy, G. Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe:Ⅱ. Effects of word type and semantic priming. The Journal of Neuroscience,1995,15(2),1090-1098.
[115]Osterhus, T. L. Pro-social consumer influence strategies:when and how do they work? Journal of marketing,1997,61(4),16-29.
[116]Overman, W. H., Frassrand, K., Ansel, S., Trawalter, S., Bies, B. & Redmond, A. Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults. Neuropsychologia,2004,42(13),1838-1851.
[117]Pires, G., Stanton, J. & Eckford, A. Influences on the perceived risk of purchasing online. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,2004,4(2),118-131.
[118]Polich, J. Updating P300:an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology,2007,118(10),2128-2148.
[119]Qin, J. & Han, S. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying identification of environmental risks. Neuropsychologia,2009,47(2),397-405.
[120]Rangel, A., Camerer, C. & Montague, P. R. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008,9(7),545-556.
[121]Ratner, R. K. & Herbst, K. C. When good decisions have bad outcomes:The impact of affect on switching behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,2005,96(1),23-37.
[122]Ritson, C. & Mai, L. W. The economics of food safety. Nutrition & Food Science,1998,98(5),253-259.
[123]Rohrmann, B. & Renn, O. Risk perception research. In:Cross-cultural risk perception:Springer,2000:11-53.
[124]Rosati, S. & Saba, A. The perception of risks associated with food-related hazards and the perceived reliability of sources of information. International journal of food science & technology,2004,39(5),491-500.
[125]Roselius, R. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of marketing,1971,35(1),56-61.
[126]Sato, A., Yasuda, A., Ohira, H., Miyawaki, K., Nishikawa, M., Kumano, H. & Kuboki, T. Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300. Neuroreport,2005,16(4),407-411.
[127]Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. & Slovic, P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk analysis,2004, 24(5),1289-1299.
[128]Savage Leonard, J. The foundations of statistics. New York:Wiley,1954.
[129]Schacht, A. & Sommer, W. Emotions in word and face processing:early and late cortical responses. Brain and cognition,2009,69(3),538-550.
[130]Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. Consumer Behavior,5rd. Pearson Australia: Prentice-Hall,1994.
[131]Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Ito, T. & Lang, P. J. Affective picture processing:the late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology,2000,37(2),257-261.
[132]Schwartz, S. H. & Rubel, T. Sex differences in value priorities:cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of personality and social psychology,2005, 89(6),1010.
[133]Seo, M.-G. & Barrett, L. F. Being emotional during decision making—good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(4), 923-940.
[134]Sharot, T., Korn, C. W. & Dolan, R. J. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature neuroscience,2011,14(11),1475-1479.
[135]Shestakova, A., Rieskamp, J., Tugin, S., Ossadtchi, A., Krutitskaya, J. & Klucharev, V. Electrophysiological precursors of social conformity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,2013,8(7),756-763.
[136]Shiv, B., Bechara, A., Levin, I., Alba, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Dube, L., Isen, A., Mellers, B., Smidts, A. & Grant, S. J. Decision neuroscience. Marketing Letters, 2005,16(3-4),375-386.
[137]Siegrist, M. A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technologyl. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1999,29(10),2093-2106.
[138]Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. & Earle, T. C. Perception of risk:the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research,2005,8(2), 145-156.
[139]Silva-Pereyra, J., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Aubert, E., Bosch, J., Galan, L. & Salazar, A. N400 during lexical decision tasks:a current source localization study. Clinical Neurophysiology,2003,114(12),2469-2486.
[140]Simon, G., Bernard, C., Largy, P., Lalonde, R. & Rebai, M. Chronometry of visual word recognition during passive and lexical decision tasks:an ERP investigation. International Journal of Neuroscience,2004,114(11),1401-1432.
[141]Simon, H. A. Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Public Opinion Quarterly,1954,18(3),245-253.
[142]Simonson, I. & Nowlis, S. M. The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making:Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research,2000,27(1),49-68.
[143]Simos, P. G., Basile, L. F. & Papanicolaou, A. C. Source localization of the N400 response in a sentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging. Brain research,1997,762(1),29-39.
[144]Sjoberg, L. The allegedly simple structure of experts' risk perception:An urban legend in risk research. Science, Technology & Human Values,2002,27(4), 443-459.
[145]Skitka, L. J. & Maslach, C. Gender as schematic category:A role construct approach. Social Behavior and Personality:an international journal,1996,24(1), 53-73.
[146]Slovic, P. The psychology of protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 1978.
[147]Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science:Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk analysis,1999,19(4),689-701.
[148]Smith, D. & Riethmuller, P. Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and Japan. International Journal of Social Economics,1999,26(6),724-742.
[149]Snyder, C. R. & Fromkin, H. L. Uniqueness:The human pursuit of difference. New York:Plenum Press,1980.
[150]Snyder, C. R. Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction:a consumer catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology,1992,13(1),9-24.
[151]Statman, M., Fisher, K. L. & Anginer, D. Affect in a behavioral asset-pricing model. Financial Analysts Journal,2008,20-29.
[152]Suchan, B., Jokisch, D., Skotara, N. & Daum, I. Evaluation-related frontocentral negativity evoked by correct responses and errors. Behavioural brain research,2007,183(2),206-212.
[153]Sugita, M. & Shiba, Y. Genetic tracing shows segregation of taste neuronal circuitries for bitter and sweet, science,2005,309(5735),781-785.
[154]Taake, I., Jaspers-Fayer, F. & Liotti, M. Early frontal responses elicited by physical threat words in an emotional Stroop task:Modulation by anxiety sensitivity. Biological psychology,2009,81(1),48-57.
[155]Takano, Y., Takahashi, N., Tanaka, D. & Hironaka, N. Big losses lead to irrational decision-making in gambling situations:relationship between deliberation and impulsivity. PloS one,2010,5(2),1-6.
[156]Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O. & Hunter, G. L. Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,2001,28(1), 50-66.
[157]Toplak, M. E., Sorge, G. B., Benoit, A., West, R. F. & Stanovich, K. E. Decision-making and cognitive abilities:A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions, and intelligence. Clinical psychology review,2010,30(5),562-581.
[158]Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases, science,1974,185(4157),1124-1131.
[159]Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, science,1981,211(4481),453-458.
[160]Van Dijk, W. W. Not having what you want versus having what you do not want:The impact of type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and related emotions. Cognition & Emotion,1999,13(2), 129-148.
[161]van Schie, H. T., Mars, R. B., Coles, M. G. H. & Bekkering, H. Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience,2004,7(5),549-554.
[162]Vasile, D. & Sebastian, T. C. NEUROFINANCE"CGETTING AN INSIGHT INTO THE TRADER;-S MIND. Neuroscience,2007,27(31),8159-8160.
[163]Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. G. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS quarterly,2000,115-139.
[164]Wang, X., Ma, Q. & Wang, C. N400 as an index of uncontrolled categorization processing in brand extension. Neuroscience letters,2012,525(1),76-81.
[165]Wang, X. T. Framing effects:Dynamics and task domains. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1996,68(2),145-157.
[166]White, K. R., Crites, S. L., Taylor, J. H. & Corral, G. Wait, what? Assessing stereotype incongruities using the N400 ERP component. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,2009,4(2),191-198.
[167]Wright, D. B. & Villalba, D. K. Memory conformity affects inaccurate memories more than accurate memories. Memory,2012,20(3),254-265.
[168]Yeung, N. & Sanfey, A. G. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience,2004,24(28), 6258-6264.
[169]Yeung, N., Holroyd, C. B. & Cohen, J. D. ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. Cerebral cortex,2005,15(5),535-544.
[170]Yeung, R. M. & Morris, J. Consumer perception of food risk in chicken meat. Nutrition & Food Science,2001a,31(6),270-279.
[171]Yeung, R. M. & Morris, J. Food safety risk:consumer perception and purchase behaviour. British Food Journal,2001b,103(3),170-187.
[172]Yeung, R. M. & Yee, W. M. Risk reduction:an insight from the UK poultry industry. Nutrition & Food Science,2003,33(5),219-229.
[173]Yu, R., Luo, Y., Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. Does the FRN in brain potentials reflect motivational/affective consequence of outcome evaluation? Progress in Natural Science,2007,17,136-143.
[174]Yu, R. & Zhou, X. Brain potentials associated with outcome expectation and outcome evaluation. NeuroReport,2006,17(15),1649.
[175]Yu, R. & Zhou, X. To bet or not to bet? The error negativity or error-related negativity associated with risk-taking choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2009,21(4),684-696.
[176]Yu, R. & Sun, S. To Conform or Not to Conform:Spontaneous Conformity Diminishes the Sensitivity to Monetary Outcomes. PLoS One,2013,8(5), e64530.
[177]Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., Van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A. S., Van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D. Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1998,75(2),117-141.
[178]百度百科.非从众行为,2009.
[179]毕玉芳.情绪对自我和他人风险决策影响的实验研究.硕士学位论文,华东师范大学,2006.
[180]曹虹剑,姚炳洪.对从众消费行为的分析与思考.消费经济,2003,(05),42-45.
[181]岑国桢.对8-16岁少年儿童认同从众反应原因的研究.心理学报,1994,(03),232-239.
[182]查华.论消费者获取食品安全信息的基本渠道.法制与社会,2009,(27),219-221.
[183]代祺.我国城市青少年从众、不从众与反从众消费行为研究.博士学位论文,西南交通大学,2008.
[184]单初,鲁耀斌.正面与负面网上评价对C2C商家初始信任影响的实证研究.图书情报工作,2010,(12),136-140.
[185]樊晓红,周爱保.内隐社会认知：社会性决策的个人背景效应.心理科学,2002,(06),690-696.
[186]冯彦东.基于脑电信号分析的突发公共事件信息框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2013.
[187]高海霞.消费者的感知风险及减少风险行为研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[188]胡卫中,齐羽,华淑芳.浙江消费者食品安全信息需求实证研究.湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(04),8-11.
[189]胡卫中.消费者食品安全风险认知的实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[190]金晶.安全标志信号词风险信息处理实验研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[191]金立印.网络口碑信息对消费者购买决策的影响：一个实验研究.经济管理,2007,(22),36-42.
[192]金时俊.食品添加剂.精细与专用化学品,1987,8.
[193]景建梅.上海证券市场羊群效应及反羊群效应的实证研究.硕士学位论文,山东大学,2013.
[194]李飞.中央企业境外投资风险控制研究.博士学位论文,财政部财政科学研究所,2012.
[195]李华强.突发性灾害中的公众风险感知与应急管理.博士学位论文,西南交通大学,2011.
[196]李敏乐.在线评论对消费者从众行为的影响机制研究——神经科学视角.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[197]李宁,严卫星.国内外食品安全风险评估在风险管理中的应用概况.中国食品卫生杂志,2011,(01),13-17.
[198]李苏军.基于行为金融学的个人投资心理行为研究.硕士学位论文,中国社会科学院研究生院,2012.
[199]李心丹.行为金融理论：研究体系及展望.金融研究,2005,(01).
[200]李新路,韩志萍：中国股市个体投资者羊群行为影响因素分析.中央财经大学学报,2007,(06),35-45.
[201]李贞.我国股票市场羊群行为的实证研究.硕士学位论文,东北财经大学,2010.
[202]刘婧.技术风险认知影响因素探析.科学管理研究,2007,(04),56-60.
[203]刘学,靳炎.基于消费者需求与信息搜寻过程的第二维营销战略模型及验证.南开管理评论,2002,(05),23-28.
[204]鲁直,何基报.中国证券投资者追风行为的实验研究.心理科学,2004,(04),828-832.
[205]马庆国,王小毅.认知神经科学、神经经济学与神经管理学.管理世界,2006,(10),139-149.
[206]钱洁凡,孟耀斌,史培军.北京城市居民风险认知状况调查.中国减灾,2009,(12),26-27.
[207]沈强.基于决策神经科学的风险决策机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[208]舒良超.基于决策神经科学的不确定决策机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[209]宋官东.从众新论.心理科学,2005,(05),1174-1178.
[210]宋赵丰.劳动力市场农民工歧视的ERP研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[211]孙多勇.突发性社会公共危机事件下个体与群体行为决策研究.博士学位论文,国防科学技术大学,2005.
[212]谭松涛,陈玉宇.投资经验能够改善股民的收益状况吗——基于股民交易记录数据的研究.金融研究,2012,(05),164-178.
[213]王二朋.食品安全事件冲击下的消费者食品安全风险感知与应对行为分析.博士学位论文,南京农业大学,2012.
[214]王甫勤.风险社会与当前中国民众的风险认知研究.上海行政学院学报,2010,(02),83-91.
[215]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[216]王巍.我国股民股票购买动机对其投资决策行为的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2012.
[217]王晓明,李雯,周爱保.认知信息的详尽度与锚定对决策策略的影响.心理科学,2011,(01).
[218]王义,柳会.基于资金流向分析的股票短期投资决策研究.中国证券期货,2011,(09),39-40.
[219]王郧,欧阳红兵.公开信息和私人信息的识别与中国股市的过度自信研究.统计研究,2009,(10),80-87.
[220]王志刚.食品安全的认知和消费决定：关于天津市个体消费者的实证分析.中国农村经济,2003,(04),41-48.
[221]维基百科,风险,2013.
[222]吴林海,徐玲玲,王晓莉.影响消费者对可追溯食品额外价格支付意愿与支付水平的主要因素——基于Logistic、Interval Censored的回归分析.中国农村经济,2010,(04),77-86.
[223]肖秋.消费者对食品添加剂的认知及食品购买行为研究.硕士学位论文,四川农业大学,2012.
[224]谢晓非,郑蕊.认知与决策领域的中国研究现况分析.心理科学进展,2003,(03),281-288.
[225]徐茂卫.我国证券投资者投资行为研究.博士学位论文,武汉理工大学,2005.
[226]叶蓓雯.投资者认知偏差对风险感知的影响及其在证券市场表现.硕士学位论文,华东师范大学,2009.
[227]易荣华,王青林,孙建明,李必静.我国股市个人投资者投资偏好与决策风格的调查研究.工业技术经济,2010,(09).
[228]于丹,董大海,金玉芳,李广辉.基于消费者视角的网上购物感知风险研究.中国市场学会2006年年会暨第四次全国会员代表大会,中国北京,2006,9.
[229]于鑫.我国股票市场羊群行为的实证研究.硕士学位论文,上海财经大学,2005.
[230]张莉侠,刘刚.消费者对生鲜食品质量安全信息搜寻行为的实证分析——基于上海市生鲜食品消费的调查.农业技术经济,2010,(02),97-103.
[231]张晓勇,李刚,张莉.中国消费者对食品安全的关切——对天津消费者的调查与分析.中国农村观察,2004,(01),14-21.
[232]张玉娜.不同类别条件下反馈类型和学习任务对大学生推理学习的影响.硕士学位论文,河南大学,2010.
[233]智库百科.行为决策理论,2007.
[234]周洁红.消费者对蔬菜安全认知和购买行为的地区差别分析.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(06),113-121.
[235]周应恒,霍丽玥,彭晓佳.食品安全：消费者态度、购买意愿及信息的影响——对南京市超市消费者的调查分析.中国农村经济,2004,(11),53-59.
[236]周应恒,卓佳.消费者食品安全风险认知研究——基于三聚氰胺事件下南京消费者的调查.农业技术经济,2010,(02),89-96.
[2]Aspara, J. & Tikkanen, H. Corporate marketing in the stock market:The impact of company identification on individuals' investment behaviour. European Journal of marketing,2011,45(9/10),1446-1469.
[3]Bearden, W. O. & Etzel, M. J. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,1982,183-194.
[4]Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H. & Anderson, S. W. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 1994,50(1),7-15.
[5]Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. & Damasio, A. R. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy, science,1997,275(5304),1293-1295.
[6]Beck, U. & Willms, J. Freiheit oder Kapitalismus:Gesellschaft neu denken. German:Suhrkamp,2000.
[7]Bennett, J. A. & Sias, R. W. Can money flows predict stock returns? Financial Analysts Journal,2001,64-77.
[8]Bettman, J. R. Perceived Risk and Its Components:A Model and Empirical Test. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1973,10(2).
[9]Bettman, J. R. & Park, C. W. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes:A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research,1980,7(3),234.
[10]Bikhchandani, S. & Sharma, S. Herd behavior in financial markets:A review. IMF Working Pare,2000.
[11]Bond, R. & Smith, P. B. Culture and conformity:A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b,1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin,1996, 119(1),111.
[12]Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological review,2001,108(3), 624.
[13]Brand, M. & Altstotter-Gleich, C. Personality and decision-making in laboratory gambling tasks-Evidence for a relationship between deciding advantageously under risk conditions and perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 2008,45(3),226-231.
[14]Brooker, G. An assessment of an expanded measure of perceived risk. Advances in consumer research,1984,11(1).
[15]Burns, D. J. & Warren, H. B. Need for uniqueness:shopping mall preference and choice activity. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,1995, 23(12),4-12.
[16]Buzby, J. C., Skees, J. R. & Ready, R. C. Using contingent valuation to value food safety:a case study of grapefruit and pesticide residues. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition (1995), Westview Press,1995.
[17]Cacioppo, J. T., Crites, S. L. & Gardner, W. L. Attitudes to the right:Evaluative processing is associated with lateralized late positive event-related brain potentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1996,22(12),1205-1219.
[18]Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D. & Cohen, J. D. Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance, science,1998,280(5364),747-749.
[19]Caswell, J. A. & Padberg, D. I. Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1992,74(2),460-468.
[20]Caswell, J. A. & Mojduszka, E. M. Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1996,78(5),1248-1253.
[21]Cella, M., Dymond, S., Cooper, A. & Turnbull, O. Effects of decision-phase time constraints on emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and cognition,2007,64(2),164-169.
[22]Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Dai, S., Wang, X. & Shu, L. The Neural and Psychological Basis of Herding in Purchasing Books Online:An Event-Related Potential Study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,2010a, 13(3),321-328.
[23]Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X. & Shu, L. Cognitive and emotional conflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online:An event-related potentials study. Biological psychology,2010b,85(3),437-445.
[24]Chen, R. & He, F. Examination of brand knowledge, perceived risk and consumers' intention to adopt an online retailer. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,2003,14(6),677-693.
[25]Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence:Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.,2004,55,591-621.
[26]Coles, M. G. H., Scheffers, M. K. & Holroyd, C. B. Why is there an ERN/Ne on correct trials? Response representations, stimulus-related components, and the theory of error-processing. Biological psychology,2001,56(3),173-189.
[27]Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H. & Wadsworth, M. E. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 2001,127(1),87.
[28]Cox, A. D., Cox, D. & Zimet, G. Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. Journal of marketing,2006,70(1),79-91.
[29]Cox, D. F. Risk handling in consumer behavior-an intensive study of two cases. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,1967,34-81.
[30]Cunningham, S. M. The major dimensions of perceived risk. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,1967,82-108.
[31]Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N. & Lang, P. J. Brain potentials in affective picture processing:covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological psychology,2000,52(2),95-111.
[32]Damasio, A. R. Descartes'error:Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York:Putnam,1994,352.
[33]Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. & Subrahmanyam, A. Investor psychology and security market under-and overreactions. The journal of finance,1998,53(6), 1839-1885.
[34]De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R. J., De Wit, W. & Timmers, J. Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety:an exploratory study. British Food Journal,2004,106(10/11),837-849.
[35]Debruille, J.B. The N400 potential could index a semantic inhibition. Brain Research Reviews,2007,56(2), 472-477.
[36]DeCanio, S. J. Rational Expectations and Learning from Experience*. The quarterly journal of economics,1979,93(1),47-57.
[37]Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I. & Tucker, D. M. Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science,1994,5(5),303-305.
[38]DeLong, J. B. Noise trader risk in financial markets.1989.
[39]Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J. & DeDonno, M. A. Intelligence, but not emotional intelligence, predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Intelligence,2010, 38(2),249-254.
[40]Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology,1955,51(3),629.
[41]Dholakia, U. M. A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of marketing,2001,35(11/12), 1340-1362.
[42]Dickson, G. C., Kerr, E. & Steele, J. Introduction to insurance. Macdonald and Evans,1984.
[43]Dizney, H. F. & Roskens, R. W. An Investigation of the" Bandwagon Effect" in a College Straw Election. The Journal of Educational Sociology,1962,108-114.
[44]Effinger, M. R. & Polborn, M. K. Herding and anti-herding:A model of reputational differentiation. European Economic Review,2001,45(3),385-403.
[45]Fagley, N., Coleman, J. G. & Simon, A. F. Effects of framing, perspective taking, and perspective (affective focus) on choice. Personality and Individual Differences,2010,48(3),264-269.
[46]Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J. & Blanke, L. Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. Ⅱ. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology,1991,78(6), 447-455.
[47]Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., Christ, S. & Hohnsbein, J. ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance:a tutorial. Biological psychology, 2000,51(2),87-107.
[48]Flykt, A. & Caldara, R. Tracking fear in snake and spider fearful participants during visual search:A multi-response domain study. Cognition and Emotion, 2006,20(8),1075-1091.
[49]Fox, E., Russo, R. & Dutton, K. Attentional bias for threat:Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion,2002,16(3), 355-379.
[50]Garbarino, E. & Strahilevitz, M. Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research,2004,57(7),768-775.
[51]Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J. & Bardes, J. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk analysis, 2004,24(1),185-194.
[52]Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E. & Donchin, E. A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science,1993,4(6), 385.
[53]Gehring, W. J., Himle, J. & Nisenson, L. G. Action-monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychological Science,2000,11(1),1.
[54]Gehring, W. J. & Willoughby, A. R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. science,2002,295(5563),2279-2282.
[55]Guercio, D. D. & Tkac, P. A. The determinants of the flow of funds of managed portfolios:Mutual funds vs. pension funds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,2002,37(04),523-557.
[56]Hajcak, G., Holroyd, C. B., Moser, J. S. & Simons, R. F. Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. Psychophysiology,2005,42(2),161-170.
[57]Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B. & Simons, R. F. The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological psychology,2006,71(2),148-154.
[58]Hartog, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. & Jonker, N. Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos,2002,55(1),3-26.
[59]Herrmann, M. J., R mmler, J., Ehlis, A. C., Heidrich, A. & Fallgatter, A. J. Source localization (LORETA) of the error-related-negativity (ERN/Ne) and positivity (Pe). Cognitive Brain Research,2004,20(2),294-299.
[60]Hewig, J., Trippe, R., Hecht, H., Coles, M. G. H., Holroyd, C. B. & Miltner, W. H. R. Decision-making in blackjack:an electrophysiological analysis. Cerebral Cortex,2007,17(4),865.
[61]Hirshleifer, D. & Shumway, T. Good day sunshine:Stock returns and the weather. The journal of finance,2003,58(3),1009-1032.
[62]Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J. & Coles, M. G. Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements:evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neuroscience letters,1998a,242(2),65-68.
[63]Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J. & Coles, M. G. H. Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements:Evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neuroscience letters,1998b,242(2),65-68.
[64]Holroyd, C. B. & Coles, M. G. The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological review,2002,109(4),679.
[65]Hornibrook, S. A., McCarthy, M. & Fearne, A. Consumers' perception of risk: the case of beef purchases in Irish supermarkets. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,2005,33(10),701-715.
[66]Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J. & McKimmie, B. M. On being loud and proud:Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology,2003,42(3),319-335.
[67]Insko, C. A., Drenan, S., Solomon, M. R., Smith, R. & Wade, T. J. Conformity as a function of the consistency of positive self-evaluation with being liked and being right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1983,19(4),341-358.
[68]Ito, T. A. & Cacioppo, J. T. Electrophysiological evidence of implicit and explicit categorization processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2000,36(6),660-676.
[69]Jacoby, J. & Kaplan, L. B. The components of perceived risk. Advances in consumer research,1972,3(3),382-383.
[70]Jou, J., Shanteau, J. & Harris, R. J. An information processing view of framing effects:The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 1996,24(1),1-15.
[71]Jungermann, H., Pfister, H. R. & Fischer, K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk analysis,1996,16(2),251-261.
[72]Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,1979,263-291.
[73]Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. & Sarin, R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economoic,1997(112),375-406.
[74]Kassarjian, H. H. Personality and consumer behavior:A review. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1971,8(4).
[75]Keswani, A. & Stolin, D. Which money is smart? Mutual fund buys and sells of individual and institutional investors. The journal of finance,2008,63(1), 85-118.
[76]Kim, H. & Markus, H. R. Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology,1999,77(4),785.
[77]Kim, H., Shimojo, S. & O'Doherty, J. P. Overlapping responses for the expectation of juice and money rewards in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex,2011,21(4),769-776.
[78]Knight, F. H. Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York:Hart, Schaffner and Marx, 1921.
[79]Knutson, B. & Cooper, J. C. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of reward prediction. Current opinion in neurology,2005,18(4),411-417.
[80]Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D. & Loewenstein, G. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron,2007,53(1),147-156.
[81]Knutson, B. & Greer, S. M. Anticipatory affect:neural correlates and consequences for choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,2008,363(1511),3771-3786.
[82]Knutson, B., Samanez-Larkin, G. R. & Kuhnen, C. M. Gain and loss learning differentially contribute to life financial outcomes. PLoS One,2011,6(9), e24390.
[83]Kok, A. Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources:a review and synthesis. Biological psychology,1997,45(1),19-56.
[84]Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity, science,1980,207(4427),203-205.
[85]Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences,2000,4(12),463-470.
[86]Leng, Y. & Zhou, X. Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship:an ERP study. Neuropsychologia,2010,48(2), 448-455.
[87]Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1),146.
[88]Leventhal, H.,Leventhal, E. A. & Contrada, R. J. Self-regulation, health, and behavior:A perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychology and Health,1998,13(4), 717-733.
[89]Levy, G. Anti-herding and strategic consultation. European Economic Review, 2004,48(3),503-525.
[90]Lewicki, R. J. & Bunker, B. B. Trust in relationships:A model of development and decline. San Francisco, CA, US:Jossey-Bass,1995.
[91]Li, J. J. & Su, C. How face influences consumption:a comparative study of American and Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 2007,49(2),237.
[92]Li, P., Jia, S., Feng, T., Liu, Q., Suo, T. & Li, H. The influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect on outcome evaluations:Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study. Neuroimage,2010,52(4),1727-1733.
[93]Lifshitz, K. The averaged evoked cortical response to complex visual stimuli. Psychophysiology,1966,3(1),55-68.
[94]Lobb, A. Consumer trust, risk and food safety:A review. Food Economics-Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C,2005,2(1),3-12.
[95]Loewenstein, G. Out of control:Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1996,65(3),272-292.
[96]Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin,2001,127(2),267.
[97]Lopes, L. L. & Oden, G. C. The role of aspiration level in risky choice:A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of mathematical psychology,1999,43(2),286-313.
[98]Lopez-Nicolas, C. & Molina-Castillo, F. J. Customer Knowledge Management and E-commerce:The role of customer perceived risk. International Journal of Information Management,2008,28(2),102-113.
[99]Luck, S. J. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambrige Mass:MIT press,2005.
[100]Ma, Q., Wang, X., Shu, L. & Dai, S. P300 and categorization in brand extension. Neuroscience letters,2008,431(1),57-61.
[101]Ma, Q., Meng, L., Wang, L. & Shen, Q. I endeavor to make it:Effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward. Behavioural brain research,2014,261, 1-7.
[102]Mahon, D. & Cowan, C. Irish consumers'perception of food safety risk in minced beef. British Food Journal,2004,106(4),301-312.
[103]Mathalon, D. H., Roach, B. J. & Ford, J. M. Automatic semantic priming abnormalities in schizophrenia. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2010, 75(2),157-166.
[104]Mazumdar, T. A value based orientation to new product planning. Journal of Consumer Marketing,1993,10(1),28-41.
[105]Merkhofer, M. W. Decision science and social risk management:A comparative evaluation of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and other formal decision-aiding approaches. Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Company,1987.
[106]Michihiro, K. & Rob, R. Bandwagon effects and long run technology choice. Games and Economic Behavior,1998,22(1),30-60.
[107]Miltner, W. H., Braun, C. H. & Coles, M. G. Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task:Evidence for a "generic" neural system for error detection. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,1997,9(6), 788-798.
[108]Miltner, W. H. R., Brauer, J., Hecht, H., Trippe, R. & Coles, M. G. H. Parallel brain activity for self-generated and observed errors. Errors, conflicts, and the brain Current opinions on performance monitoring,2004,124-129.
[109]Murray, K. B. A test of services marketing theory:consumer information acquisition activities. The Journal of Marketing,1991,10-25.
[110]Nakamura, C. Y. Conformity and problem solving. The journal of abnormal and social psychology,1958,56(3),315.
[111]Neumann von J, M. O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1944.
[112]Nieuwenhuis, S., Holroyd, C. B., Mol, N. & Coles, M. G. Reinforcement-related brain potentials from medial frontal cortex:origins and functional significance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,2004,28(4), 441-448.
[113]Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G. & Cohen, J. D. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus--norepinephrine system. Psychological bulletin,2005,131(4), 510.
[114]Nobre, A. C. & Mccarthy, G. Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe:Ⅱ. Effects of word type and semantic priming. The Journal of Neuroscience,1995,15(2),1090-1098.
[115]Osterhus, T. L. Pro-social consumer influence strategies:when and how do they work? Journal of marketing,1997,61(4),16-29.
[116]Overman, W. H., Frassrand, K., Ansel, S., Trawalter, S., Bies, B. & Redmond, A. Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults. Neuropsychologia,2004,42(13),1838-1851.
[117]Pires, G., Stanton, J. & Eckford, A. Influences on the perceived risk of purchasing online. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,2004,4(2),118-131.
[118]Polich, J. Updating P300:an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology,2007,118(10),2128-2148.
[119]Qin, J. & Han, S. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying identification of environmental risks. Neuropsychologia,2009,47(2),397-405.
[120]Rangel, A., Camerer, C. & Montague, P. R. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008,9(7),545-556.
[121]Ratner, R. K. & Herbst, K. C. When good decisions have bad outcomes:The impact of affect on switching behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,2005,96(1),23-37.
[122]Ritson, C. & Mai, L. W. The economics of food safety. Nutrition & Food Science,1998,98(5),253-259.
[123]Rohrmann, B. & Renn, O. Risk perception research. In:Cross-cultural risk perception:Springer,2000:11-53.
[124]Rosati, S. & Saba, A. The perception of risks associated with food-related hazards and the perceived reliability of sources of information. International journal of food science & technology,2004,39(5),491-500.
[125]Roselius, R. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of marketing,1971,35(1),56-61.
[126]Sato, A., Yasuda, A., Ohira, H., Miyawaki, K., Nishikawa, M., Kumano, H. & Kuboki, T. Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300. Neuroreport,2005,16(4),407-411.
[127]Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. & Slovic, P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk analysis,2004, 24(5),1289-1299.
[128]Savage Leonard, J. The foundations of statistics. New York:Wiley,1954.
[129]Schacht, A. & Sommer, W. Emotions in word and face processing:early and late cortical responses. Brain and cognition,2009,69(3),538-550.
[130]Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. Consumer Behavior,5rd. Pearson Australia: Prentice-Hall,1994.
[131]Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Ito, T. & Lang, P. J. Affective picture processing:the late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology,2000,37(2),257-261.
[132]Schwartz, S. H. & Rubel, T. Sex differences in value priorities:cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of personality and social psychology,2005, 89(6),1010.
[133]Seo, M.-G. & Barrett, L. F. Being emotional during decision making—good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(4), 923-940.
[134]Sharot, T., Korn, C. W. & Dolan, R. J. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature neuroscience,2011,14(11),1475-1479.
[135]Shestakova, A., Rieskamp, J., Tugin, S., Ossadtchi, A., Krutitskaya, J. & Klucharev, V. Electrophysiological precursors of social conformity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,2013,8(7),756-763.
[136]Shiv, B., Bechara, A., Levin, I., Alba, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Dube, L., Isen, A., Mellers, B., Smidts, A. & Grant, S. J. Decision neuroscience. Marketing Letters, 2005,16(3-4),375-386.
[137]Siegrist, M. A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technologyl. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1999,29(10),2093-2106.
[138]Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. & Earle, T. C. Perception of risk:the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research,2005,8(2), 145-156.
[139]Silva-Pereyra, J., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Aubert, E., Bosch, J., Galan, L. & Salazar, A. N400 during lexical decision tasks:a current source localization study. Clinical Neurophysiology,2003,114(12),2469-2486.
[140]Simon, G., Bernard, C., Largy, P., Lalonde, R. & Rebai, M. Chronometry of visual word recognition during passive and lexical decision tasks:an ERP investigation. International Journal of Neuroscience,2004,114(11),1401-1432.
[141]Simon, H. A. Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Public Opinion Quarterly,1954,18(3),245-253.
[142]Simonson, I. & Nowlis, S. M. The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making:Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research,2000,27(1),49-68.
[143]Simos, P. G., Basile, L. F. & Papanicolaou, A. C. Source localization of the N400 response in a sentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging. Brain research,1997,762(1),29-39.
[144]Sjoberg, L. The allegedly simple structure of experts' risk perception:An urban legend in risk research. Science, Technology & Human Values,2002,27(4), 443-459.
[145]Skitka, L. J. & Maslach, C. Gender as schematic category:A role construct approach. Social Behavior and Personality:an international journal,1996,24(1), 53-73.
[146]Slovic, P. The psychology of protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 1978.
[147]Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science:Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk analysis,1999,19(4),689-701.
[148]Smith, D. & Riethmuller, P. Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and Japan. International Journal of Social Economics,1999,26(6),724-742.
[149]Snyder, C. R. & Fromkin, H. L. Uniqueness:The human pursuit of difference. New York:Plenum Press,1980.
[150]Snyder, C. R. Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction:a consumer catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology,1992,13(1),9-24.
[151]Statman, M., Fisher, K. L. & Anginer, D. Affect in a behavioral asset-pricing model. Financial Analysts Journal,2008,20-29.
[152]Suchan, B., Jokisch, D., Skotara, N. & Daum, I. Evaluation-related frontocentral negativity evoked by correct responses and errors. Behavioural brain research,2007,183(2),206-212.
[153]Sugita, M. & Shiba, Y. Genetic tracing shows segregation of taste neuronal circuitries for bitter and sweet, science,2005,309(5735),781-785.
[154]Taake, I., Jaspers-Fayer, F. & Liotti, M. Early frontal responses elicited by physical threat words in an emotional Stroop task:Modulation by anxiety sensitivity. Biological psychology,2009,81(1),48-57.
[155]Takano, Y., Takahashi, N., Tanaka, D. & Hironaka, N. Big losses lead to irrational decision-making in gambling situations:relationship between deliberation and impulsivity. PloS one,2010,5(2),1-6.
[156]Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O. & Hunter, G. L. Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,2001,28(1), 50-66.
[157]Toplak, M. E., Sorge, G. B., Benoit, A., West, R. F. & Stanovich, K. E. Decision-making and cognitive abilities:A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions, and intelligence. Clinical psychology review,2010,30(5),562-581.
[158]Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases, science,1974,185(4157),1124-1131.
[159]Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, science,1981,211(4481),453-458.
[160]Van Dijk, W. W. Not having what you want versus having what you do not want:The impact of type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and related emotions. Cognition & Emotion,1999,13(2), 129-148.
[161]van Schie, H. T., Mars, R. B., Coles, M. G. H. & Bekkering, H. Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience,2004,7(5),549-554.
[162]Vasile, D. & Sebastian, T. C. NEUROFINANCE"CGETTING AN INSIGHT INTO THE TRADER;-S MIND. Neuroscience,2007,27(31),8159-8160.
[163]Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. G. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS quarterly,2000,115-139.
[164]Wang, X., Ma, Q. & Wang, C. N400 as an index of uncontrolled categorization processing in brand extension. Neuroscience letters,2012,525(1),76-81.
[165]Wang, X. T. Framing effects:Dynamics and task domains. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1996,68(2),145-157.
[166]White, K. R., Crites, S. L., Taylor, J. H. & Corral, G. Wait, what? Assessing stereotype incongruities using the N400 ERP component. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,2009,4(2),191-198.
[167]Wright, D. B. & Villalba, D. K. Memory conformity affects inaccurate memories more than accurate memories. Memory,2012,20(3),254-265.
[168]Yeung, N. & Sanfey, A. G. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience,2004,24(28), 6258-6264.
[169]Yeung, N., Holroyd, C. B. & Cohen, J. D. ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. Cerebral cortex,2005,15(5),535-544.
[170]Yeung, R. M. & Morris, J. Consumer perception of food risk in chicken meat. Nutrition & Food Science,2001a,31(6),270-279.
[171]Yeung, R. M. & Morris, J. Food safety risk:consumer perception and purchase behaviour. British Food Journal,2001b,103(3),170-187.
[172]Yeung, R. M. & Yee, W. M. Risk reduction:an insight from the UK poultry industry. Nutrition & Food Science,2003,33(5),219-229.
[173]Yu, R., Luo, Y., Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. Does the FRN in brain potentials reflect motivational/affective consequence of outcome evaluation? Progress in Natural Science,2007,17,136-143.
[174]Yu, R. & Zhou, X. Brain potentials associated with outcome expectation and outcome evaluation. NeuroReport,2006,17(15),1649.
[175]Yu, R. & Zhou, X. To bet or not to bet? The error negativity or error-related negativity associated with risk-taking choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2009,21(4),684-696.
[176]Yu, R. & Sun, S. To Conform or Not to Conform:Spontaneous Conformity Diminishes the Sensitivity to Monetary Outcomes. PLoS One,2013,8(5), e64530.
[177]Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., Van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A. S., Van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D. Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1998,75(2),117-141.
[178]百度百科.非从众行为,2009.
[179]毕玉芳.情绪对自我和他人风险决策影响的实验研究.硕士学位论文,华东师范大学,2006.
[180]曹虹剑,姚炳洪.对从众消费行为的分析与思考.消费经济,2003,(05),42-45.
[181]岑国桢.对8-16岁少年儿童认同从众反应原因的研究.心理学报,1994,(03),232-239.
[182]查华.论消费者获取食品安全信息的基本渠道.法制与社会,2009,(27),219-221.
[183]代祺.我国城市青少年从众、不从众与反从众消费行为研究.博士学位论文,西南交通大学,2008.
[184]单初,鲁耀斌.正面与负面网上评价对C2C商家初始信任影响的实证研究.图书情报工作,2010,(12),136-140.
[185]樊晓红,周爱保.内隐社会认知：社会性决策的个人背景效应.心理科学,2002,(06),690-696.
[186]冯彦东.基于脑电信号分析的突发公共事件信息框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2013.
[187]高海霞.消费者的感知风险及减少风险行为研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[188]胡卫中,齐羽,华淑芳.浙江消费者食品安全信息需求实证研究.湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(04),8-11.
[189]胡卫中.消费者食品安全风险认知的实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[190]金晶.安全标志信号词风险信息处理实验研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[191]金立印.网络口碑信息对消费者购买决策的影响：一个实验研究.经济管理,2007,(22),36-42.
[192]金时俊.食品添加剂.精细与专用化学品,1987,8.
[193]景建梅.上海证券市场羊群效应及反羊群效应的实证研究.硕士学位论文,山东大学,2013.
[194]李飞.中央企业境外投资风险控制研究.博士学位论文,财政部财政科学研究所,2012.
[195]李华强.突发性灾害中的公众风险感知与应急管理.博士学位论文,西南交通大学,2011.
[196]李敏乐.在线评论对消费者从众行为的影响机制研究——神经科学视角.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[197]李宁,严卫星.国内外食品安全风险评估在风险管理中的应用概况.中国食品卫生杂志,2011,(01),13-17.
[198]李苏军.基于行为金融学的个人投资心理行为研究.硕士学位论文,中国社会科学院研究生院,2012.
[199]李心丹.行为金融理论：研究体系及展望.金融研究,2005,(01).
[200]李新路,韩志萍：中国股市个体投资者羊群行为影响因素分析.中央财经大学学报,2007,(06),35-45.
[201]李贞.我国股票市场羊群行为的实证研究.硕士学位论文,东北财经大学,2010.
[202]刘婧.技术风险认知影响因素探析.科学管理研究,2007,(04),56-60.
[203]刘学,靳炎.基于消费者需求与信息搜寻过程的第二维营销战略模型及验证.南开管理评论,2002,(05),23-28.
[204]鲁直,何基报.中国证券投资者追风行为的实验研究.心理科学,2004,(04),828-832.
[205]马庆国,王小毅.认知神经科学、神经经济学与神经管理学.管理世界,2006,(10),139-149.
[206]钱洁凡,孟耀斌,史培军.北京城市居民风险认知状况调查.中国减灾,2009,(12),26-27.
[207]沈强.基于决策神经科学的风险决策机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[208]舒良超.基于决策神经科学的不确定决策机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[209]宋官东.从众新论.心理科学,2005,(05),1174-1178.
[210]宋赵丰.劳动力市场农民工歧视的ERP研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[211]孙多勇.突发性社会公共危机事件下个体与群体行为决策研究.博士学位论文,国防科学技术大学,2005.
[212]谭松涛,陈玉宇.投资经验能够改善股民的收益状况吗——基于股民交易记录数据的研究.金融研究,2012,(05),164-178.
[213]王二朋.食品安全事件冲击下的消费者食品安全风险感知与应对行为分析.博士学位论文,南京农业大学,2012.
[214]王甫勤.风险社会与当前中国民众的风险认知研究.上海行政学院学报,2010,(02),83-91.
[215]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[216]王巍.我国股民股票购买动机对其投资决策行为的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2012.
[217]王晓明,李雯,周爱保.认知信息的详尽度与锚定对决策策略的影响.心理科学,2011,(01).
[218]王义,柳会.基于资金流向分析的股票短期投资决策研究.中国证券期货,2011,(09),39-40.
[219]王郧,欧阳红兵.公开信息和私人信息的识别与中国股市的过度自信研究.统计研究,2009,(10),80-87.
[220]王志刚.食品安全的认知和消费决定：关于天津市个体消费者的实证分析.中国农村经济,2003,(04),41-48.
[221]维基百科,风险,2013.
[222]吴林海,徐玲玲,王晓莉.影响消费者对可追溯食品额外价格支付意愿与支付水平的主要因素——基于Logistic、Interval Censored的回归分析.中国农村经济,2010,(04),77-86.
[223]肖秋.消费者对食品添加剂的认知及食品购买行为研究.硕士学位论文,四川农业大学,2012.
[224]谢晓非,郑蕊.认知与决策领域的中国研究现况分析.心理科学进展,2003,(03),281-288.
[225]徐茂卫.我国证券投资者投资行为研究.博士学位论文,武汉理工大学,2005.
[226]叶蓓雯.投资者认知偏差对风险感知的影响及其在证券市场表现.硕士学位论文,华东师范大学,2009.
[227]易荣华,王青林,孙建明,李必静.我国股市个人投资者投资偏好与决策风格的调查研究.工业技术经济,2010,(09).
[228]于丹,董大海,金玉芳,李广辉.基于消费者视角的网上购物感知风险研究.中国市场学会2006年年会暨第四次全国会员代表大会,中国北京,2006,9.
[229]于鑫.我国股票市场羊群行为的实证研究.硕士学位论文,上海财经大学,2005.
[230]张莉侠,刘刚.消费者对生鲜食品质量安全信息搜寻行为的实证分析——基于上海市生鲜食品消费的调查.农业技术经济,2010,(02),97-103.
[231]张晓勇,李刚,张莉.中国消费者对食品安全的关切——对天津消费者的调查与分析.中国农村观察,2004,(01),14-21.
[232]张玉娜.不同类别条件下反馈类型和学习任务对大学生推理学习的影响.硕士学位论文,河南大学,2010.
[233]智库百科.行为决策理论,2007.
[234]周洁红.消费者对蔬菜安全认知和购买行为的地区差别分析.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(06),113-121.
[235]周应恒,霍丽玥,彭晓佳.食品安全：消费者态度、购买意愿及信息的影响——对南京市超市消费者的调查分析.中国农村经济,2004,(11),53-59.
[236]周应恒,卓佳.消费者食品安全风险认知研究——基于三聚氰胺事件下南京消费者的调查.农业技术经济,2010,(02),89-96.