认知风格对不同类型框架效应的影响研究
|
摘要
决策是一种高级认知加工活动,普遍存在于人们的行为中。决策过程中的理性与非理性是决策理论争论的一个热点。决策过程中的框架效应体现了问题表述对理性决策的干扰,意指当决策问题的表述发生改变时,决策选择发生反转的现象。以往研究对风险决策框架给予了高度关注,然而缺乏对其他类型决策框架以及框架效应影响因素的探讨。
本研究综合使用问卷调查、ERP技术、LORETA源定位方法等研究手段,首先从不同认知风格被试处理不同类型决策框架信息时的行为反应入手,进而探讨当决策问题信息以不同方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者在决策加工过程中的认知活动及神经机制。实验分析N200成分和P300成分的平均波幅和潜伏期,以及相应的大脑活动来源。研究发现,对于不同认知风格被试,大脑左半球的N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅均显著低于右半球。当决策问题信息以语言文字的方式呈现时,场依存者的N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅均显著低于场独立者；当决策问题信息以图形方式呈现时,没有发现场依存者和场独立者在N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅上的显著差异。采用LORETA源定位对N200和P300的大脑活动来源进行的分析发现,大脑额叶和顶叶的多个区域参与了决策的认知加工。
结合以往研究和本研究的实验结果,得到以下几点结论：
(1)认知风格与框架效应具有显著相关关系。与场独立者相比,场依存者更容易产生框架效应。
(2)当决策问题信息以语言文字这一传统方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者在行为反应时、N200平均波幅、P300平均波幅上均存在显著差异。与场依存者相比,场独立者在决策刺激的最初辨别和随后的信息评价过程中投入了更多的认知加工。
(3)当决策问题信息以图形方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者的决策加工过程表现出了相似的早期加工特点和行为反应特点。但在对刺激信息进行认知评价时,与场依存者相比,场独立者对决策问题信息分配了更多的注意资源,并进行了更深入的认知加工
(4)决策问题信息的呈现方式不仅影响决策者的决策行为和大脑活动,而且这一影响可以一定程度地掩盖场依存者和场独立者之间加工过程的差异。
(5)大脑右半球在认知决策过程中起到了重要作用。无论场依存者还场独立者,在对决策问题信息的早期辨别加工和随后的认知评价中都表现出了大脑右半球的加工优势。
(6)决策问题的呈现方式影响大脑活动的时间进程。当决策问题信息以文字呈现时,决策者对刺激信息的加工起始于左半球,然后转向右半球并在右半球完成加工。当决策问题信息以图形呈现时,决策者对刺激信息的认知加工起始于右半球,然后转向左半球,并在左半球中完成加工过程。
(7)对N200成分和P300成分进行的大脑活动来源的分析发现,决策加工激活的脑区分布在额叶和顶叶的多个区域,包括额上回、额中回、顶叶后中央回、舌回,涵盖了BA6, BA7, BA18等区域。该结果与以往采用脑成像方法的研究相吻合,表明额叶和顶叶在决策过程中起到了重要作用。
As an advanced cognitive activity, decision-making exists in human daily life. In the pastfew decades, the rationality of the decision-making process has sparked enormous interestwithin the fields of psychology and also economy. In the contrast to the axiom of descriptionof invariance, vast numbers of reports in the literature and results from research haveindicated that people often deviate from responses considered as being normative in manyjudgemental and decision-making tasks, which is also known as framing effect indecision-making that different representations of the same problem do not yield the samepreference or choice. Traditional research in framing effects has commonly and mainly beenfocused on risky choice framing effect, whereas the research on other types of framing effectand the influential factors seems to be lacking. Therefore, the current study has utilizedquestionnaire, ERP technology, LORETA souce localization technology and other techniquesto further investigate the differences of cognitive activities and neuromechanism betweenindividuals with field-dependent cognitive style and field-independent cognitivelyrespectively, starting with the distinctions in behavioural responses that individual withdifferent cognitive styles may have. Results from the analysis of the brain activities and theaverage amplitude and latent period of N200and P300in the present study illustrate that theaverage amplitudes of N200and P300in the left hemisphere are significantly lower than theright hemisphere, regardless of the cognitive styles. Furthermore, in the situation where thedecision tasks have utilized verbal scenarios, the average amplitudes of N200and P300inparticipants with field-dependent cognitive style are remarkably lower than thefield-independent individuals; thereagainst, in the situation where decision problem isexhibited with graphical representations, no outstanding difference on the average amplitudesof N200and P300has been found between individuals with the two different cognitive styles.The manipulation of LORETA source localization technology on the source of N200andP300in the brain activities has revealed that multi region in the brain, such as the frontal lobeand parietal lobe, are involved in the cognitive processing in decision-making.
To integrate the research results of the present study with previous research, severalconclusions can be drawn:
The representations of the decision task can impact on people's decision behaviour andbrain activity, simultaneously, the impact can somehow conceal the differences in cognitiveprocessing caused by cognitive style itself between people with field-dependent cognitivestyle and field-independent cognitive style.
When the decision tasks are represented utilizing verbal scenarios, the average amplitudes of N200and P300and response time are significantly different betweenindividuals with the two cognitive styles, known as field-dependent and field-independent.Additionally, comparing with individuals with field-dependent cognitive style, individualswith field-independent cognitive style put extra cognitive processing into the initialassessment and feedback process afterwards.
In the situation where the decision problems are demonstrated using graphicrepresentations, similar early processing and behaviour features have been found in thecognitive process in decision-making between people with field-dependent cognitive style andfield-independent cognitive style. Furthermore, more attentional resources and furthercognitive processing have been assigned to the information of the decision questions inindividuals with field-independent cognitive style, rather than individuals withfield-dependent cognitive style.
The right hemisphere has been proved to play a vital role in the cognitive processing ofdecision-making, and the right-hemisphere dominance in early evaluation process and later-oncognitive assessment has been found in people with both field-dependent cognitive style andfield-independent cognitive style.
The representations of decision problem can alter the time course of brain activities.Specifically, when the representations are verbally, decision-makers' cognitive processing ofstimuli start from the left hemisphere and gradually transfer towards the right hemisphere,which finalized in the right hemisphere. Nevertheless, when the decision problem aredescribed using graphical representations, decision-makers' cognitive processing of thestimuli start from the right hemisphere and shift to the left hemisphere, then completed theprocessing there.
Results of source localization analysis on the brain activities of N200and P300indicatethe several areas in the frontal lobe and parietal lobe have been activated by the cognitiveprocessing of decision-making, including superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus,post-central gyrus, and lingual gyrus, which comprise BA6, BA7, BA18and other regions.This result is consistent with the findings from previous cerebral imaging studies, whichimplied the vital role that frontal lobe and parietal lobe played in the decision-making process.
本研究综合使用问卷调查、ERP技术、LORETA源定位方法等研究手段,首先从不同认知风格被试处理不同类型决策框架信息时的行为反应入手,进而探讨当决策问题信息以不同方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者在决策加工过程中的认知活动及神经机制。实验分析N200成分和P300成分的平均波幅和潜伏期,以及相应的大脑活动来源。研究发现,对于不同认知风格被试,大脑左半球的N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅均显著低于右半球。当决策问题信息以语言文字的方式呈现时,场依存者的N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅均显著低于场独立者；当决策问题信息以图形方式呈现时,没有发现场依存者和场独立者在N200平均波幅和P300平均波幅上的显著差异。采用LORETA源定位对N200和P300的大脑活动来源进行的分析发现,大脑额叶和顶叶的多个区域参与了决策的认知加工。
结合以往研究和本研究的实验结果,得到以下几点结论：
(1)认知风格与框架效应具有显著相关关系。与场独立者相比,场依存者更容易产生框架效应。
(2)当决策问题信息以语言文字这一传统方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者在行为反应时、N200平均波幅、P300平均波幅上均存在显著差异。与场依存者相比,场独立者在决策刺激的最初辨别和随后的信息评价过程中投入了更多的认知加工。
(3)当决策问题信息以图形方式呈现时,场依存者和场独立者的决策加工过程表现出了相似的早期加工特点和行为反应特点。但在对刺激信息进行认知评价时,与场依存者相比,场独立者对决策问题信息分配了更多的注意资源,并进行了更深入的认知加工
(4)决策问题信息的呈现方式不仅影响决策者的决策行为和大脑活动,而且这一影响可以一定程度地掩盖场依存者和场独立者之间加工过程的差异。
(5)大脑右半球在认知决策过程中起到了重要作用。无论场依存者还场独立者,在对决策问题信息的早期辨别加工和随后的认知评价中都表现出了大脑右半球的加工优势。
(6)决策问题的呈现方式影响大脑活动的时间进程。当决策问题信息以文字呈现时,决策者对刺激信息的加工起始于左半球,然后转向右半球并在右半球完成加工。当决策问题信息以图形呈现时,决策者对刺激信息的认知加工起始于右半球,然后转向左半球,并在左半球中完成加工过程。
(7)对N200成分和P300成分进行的大脑活动来源的分析发现,决策加工激活的脑区分布在额叶和顶叶的多个区域,包括额上回、额中回、顶叶后中央回、舌回,涵盖了BA6, BA7, BA18等区域。该结果与以往采用脑成像方法的研究相吻合,表明额叶和顶叶在决策过程中起到了重要作用。
As an advanced cognitive activity, decision-making exists in human daily life. In the pastfew decades, the rationality of the decision-making process has sparked enormous interestwithin the fields of psychology and also economy. In the contrast to the axiom of descriptionof invariance, vast numbers of reports in the literature and results from research haveindicated that people often deviate from responses considered as being normative in manyjudgemental and decision-making tasks, which is also known as framing effect indecision-making that different representations of the same problem do not yield the samepreference or choice. Traditional research in framing effects has commonly and mainly beenfocused on risky choice framing effect, whereas the research on other types of framing effectand the influential factors seems to be lacking. Therefore, the current study has utilizedquestionnaire, ERP technology, LORETA souce localization technology and other techniquesto further investigate the differences of cognitive activities and neuromechanism betweenindividuals with field-dependent cognitive style and field-independent cognitivelyrespectively, starting with the distinctions in behavioural responses that individual withdifferent cognitive styles may have. Results from the analysis of the brain activities and theaverage amplitude and latent period of N200and P300in the present study illustrate that theaverage amplitudes of N200and P300in the left hemisphere are significantly lower than theright hemisphere, regardless of the cognitive styles. Furthermore, in the situation where thedecision tasks have utilized verbal scenarios, the average amplitudes of N200and P300inparticipants with field-dependent cognitive style are remarkably lower than thefield-independent individuals; thereagainst, in the situation where decision problem isexhibited with graphical representations, no outstanding difference on the average amplitudesof N200and P300has been found between individuals with the two different cognitive styles.The manipulation of LORETA source localization technology on the source of N200andP300in the brain activities has revealed that multi region in the brain, such as the frontal lobeand parietal lobe, are involved in the cognitive processing in decision-making.
To integrate the research results of the present study with previous research, severalconclusions can be drawn:
The representations of the decision task can impact on people's decision behaviour andbrain activity, simultaneously, the impact can somehow conceal the differences in cognitiveprocessing caused by cognitive style itself between people with field-dependent cognitivestyle and field-independent cognitive style.
When the decision tasks are represented utilizing verbal scenarios, the average amplitudes of N200and P300and response time are significantly different betweenindividuals with the two cognitive styles, known as field-dependent and field-independent.Additionally, comparing with individuals with field-dependent cognitive style, individualswith field-independent cognitive style put extra cognitive processing into the initialassessment and feedback process afterwards.
In the situation where the decision problems are demonstrated using graphicrepresentations, similar early processing and behaviour features have been found in thecognitive process in decision-making between people with field-dependent cognitive style andfield-independent cognitive style. Furthermore, more attentional resources and furthercognitive processing have been assigned to the information of the decision questions inindividuals with field-independent cognitive style, rather than individuals withfield-dependent cognitive style.
The right hemisphere has been proved to play a vital role in the cognitive processing ofdecision-making, and the right-hemisphere dominance in early evaluation process and later-oncognitive assessment has been found in people with both field-dependent cognitive style andfield-independent cognitive style.
The representations of decision problem can alter the time course of brain activities.Specifically, when the representations are verbally, decision-makers' cognitive processing ofstimuli start from the left hemisphere and gradually transfer towards the right hemisphere,which finalized in the right hemisphere. Nevertheless, when the decision problem aredescribed using graphical representations, decision-makers' cognitive processing of thestimuli start from the right hemisphere and shift to the left hemisphere, then completed theprocessing there.
Results of source localization analysis on the brain activities of N200and P300indicatethe several areas in the frontal lobe and parietal lobe have been activated by the cognitiveprocessing of decision-making, including superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus,post-central gyrus, and lingual gyrus, which comprise BA6, BA7, BA18and other regions.This result is consistent with the findings from previous cerebral imaging studies, whichimplied the vital role that frontal lobe and parietal lobe played in the decision-making process.
引文
[1] Arrow K J. Risk perception in psychology and economics[J]. Economic Inquiry,1982,20:1-9.
[2] Bartholow B D, Riordan M A, Saults J S, et al. Psychophysiological evidence of response conflict andstrategic control of responses in affective priming[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2009,45:655-666.
[3] Bateman C R, Fraedrich J P, Iyer R. Framing effects within the ethical decision making process ofconsumers[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,36(1):119-140.
[4] Bless H, Betsch T, Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions tothe Asian Disease problem[J]. European Journal of Social Psychology,1998,28:287-291.
[5] Botvinick M M, Braver T S, Barch D M, et al. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control[J].Psychological Review,2001,108:624-652.
[6] Breiter H C, Aharon I, Kahneman D, et al. Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy andexperience of monetary gains and loses[J]. Neuron,2001,30:619-639.
[7] Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Neuroscience: how neuroscience can inform economics[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2005,43(1):9-64.
[8] Carretie L, Hinojosa J A, Mercato J A F. Neural response to sustained affective visual stimulation usingan indirect task[J]. Experimental Brain Research,2006,174:630-637.
[9] Carretié L, Mercado J A F, Tapia M, et al. Emotion, attentioevent-related potentials[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2001,41:75-85.
[10] Carter C S, Braver T S, Barch D M, et al. Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the onlinemonitoring of performance[J]. Science,1998,280:747-749.
[11] Churchill G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs [J]. Journal ofMarketing Research,1979,16(1):64-73.
[12] De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, et al. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in humanbrain[J]. Science,2006,313(5):684-687.
[13] Edwards W. The theory of decision making[J]. Psychological Bulletin,1954,51:380-417.
[14] Fabiani M, Gratton G, Federmeier K D. Event-related brain potentials: methods, theory andapplications[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2007,85-119.
[15] Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choices: your money of your life[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997,71:355-373.
[16] Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects[J]. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1993,54.
[17] Gallagher P, Dagenbach D. Manipulating noise frequencies alters hemispheric contributions todecision making[J]. Brain and Cognition,2007,64(1):42-49.
[18] Gonzalez C, Dana J, Koshino H, Just M. The framing effect and risky decisions: examining cognitivefunctions with fMRI[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology,2005,26:1-20.
[19] Guo F Y, et al. An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing-anapplication of the eye-tracking technology[J]. Decision Support Systems,2009,6.
[20] Huang Y X, Luo Y J. Temporal course of emotional negativity bias: an ERP study[J]. NeuroscienceLetters,2006,398:91-96.
[21] Huff D. How to lie with statistics[M]. New York: Norton,1954.
[22] Igou E R, Bless H. On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function ofsubstantive processing[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2007,20:125-142.
[23] Kagan J L. Impulsive and reflective children: significance of conceptual tempo. In J. Dkumboltz (Ed),Learning and the educational process[M]. Chicago: Rand McNally,1996.
[24] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econornetrica,1979,47(2):263-292.
[25] Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice[J]. Science,1981,221:453-458.
[26] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames[J]. American Psychologist,1984,39(4):341-350.
[27] Kim S, Goldstein D, Hasher L, Zacks R T. Framing effects in younger and older adults[J]. The Journalof Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,2005,60.
[28] Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis[J]. OrganizationalBehavior&Human Decision Processes,1998,75:23-55.
[29] Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbedk M, Perner J. The effects of framing reflection, probability, andpayoff on risk preference in choice tasks[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1999,78.
[30] Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2002,89(2):1162-1175.
[31] Kuvaas B, Kaufmann G. Impact of mood, framing, and need for cognand confidence[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2004,17(1):59-74.
[32] Levin I P. Why do you and I make different decisions? Tracking individual differences in decisionmaking[J]. JDM Newsletter,1999, XV (4):5.
[33] Levin I P, Gaeth G J. Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1988,15:274-378.
[34] Levin I P, Gaeth G J, Schreiber J, et al. A new look at framing effect: distribution of effect sizes,individual differences, and independence of types of effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes,2002,88(1):411-429.
[35] Levin I P, Huneke M E, Jasper J D. Information processing at successive stages of decision making:need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses,2000,82(2):171-193.
[36] Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysisof framing effects[J]. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,1998,76(2):149-188.
[37] Loewenstein G F. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice[J]. Management science,1988,34.
[38] Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C K, et al. Risk as feelings[J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001,127(2):267-286.
[39] Ma Q G, Wang X Y, Dai S Y, et al. Event-related potential N270correlates of brand extension[J].NeuroReport,2007,18(10):1031-1034.
[40] Maguire M, Brier M R, Moore P S, et al. The influence of perceptual and semantic categorization oninhibitory processing as measured by the N2-P3response[J]. Brain and Cognition,2009,71:196-203.
[41] Martin L E, Potts G F. Impulsivity in decision-making: an event-related potential investigation[J].Personality and Individual Differences,2009,46:303-308.
[42] Mayerowitz B E, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes,intentions, and behaviour[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1987,21:171-186.
[43] McElroy T, Mascari D. When is it going to happen? How temporal distance influences processing forrisky-choice framing tasks[J]. Social cognition,2007,25(4):495-517.
[44] McElory T, Seta J J. Framing effects: an analytic-holistic perspective[J]. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology,2003,39:610-617.
[45] McElory T, Seta J J. On the other hand am I rational? Hemisphere activation and the framing effect[J].Brain and Cognition,2004,55.
[46] McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing the frame: How task goals determine the likelihood and direction offraming effects[J]. Judgement and Decision Making,2007,2(4):251-256.
[47] McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing effects: an analytic-holistic perspective[J]. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology,2003,39:610-617.
[48] McNeil B J, Pauker S G, Sox H C, et al. On the elicitation of references for alternative therapies[J].New England Journal of Medicine,1982,306:1259-1262.
[49] Mennes M, Wouters H, Bergh B V D, et al. ERP correlates of complex human decision making in agambling paradigm: detection and resolution of conflict[J]. Psychophysiology,2008,45:714-720.
[50] Mercado F, Carretié L, Tapia M, et al. The influence of emotional context on attention in anxioussubjects: neurophysiological correlates[J]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,2006,20:72-84.
[51] Moore S R, Smith R E, Gonzalez R. Personality and judgement heuristics: contextual and individualdifference interactions in social judgement[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1997,23:76-83.
[52] Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen J D. Decision making, the P3, and the locuscoeruleus-norepinephrine system[J]. Psychological Bulletin,2005,131:510-532.
[53] Paulus M P, Rogalsky C, Simmons A, et al. Increased activation in the right insula during risk-takingdecision making is related to her avoidance and neuroticism[J]. NeuroImage,2003,19:1439-1448.
[54] Piaget J. Quantification, conservation, and nativism[J]. Science,1968,162:976-979.
[55] Polezzi D, Lotto L, Daum I, et al. Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain[J]. Behavioral BrainResearch,2008,187:116-122.
[56] Polezzi D, Sartori G, Rumiati R, Vidotto G, Daum I. Brain correlates of risky decision-making[J].NeuroImage,2010,49:1886-1894.
[57] Qin J L, Xiao F, Li F, et al. The characteristic of extrapolation in numerical inductive inference: anERP study[J]. Brain Research,2009,1295:142-148.
[58] Raghubir P, Krishna A. Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach[J].Journal of Marketing Research,1999,36:313-326.
[59] Raghunathan R, Pham M T. All negative moods are not equal: motivational influences of anxiety andsadness on decision making[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1999,79(1):56-77.
[60] Reyna V F, Brainerd C J. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation,and conversion[J]. Journal of Behavior Decision Making,1991,4:249-262.
[61] Riet J V, Ruiter R A C, Werrij M Q, Vries H D. The influence of self-efficacy on the effects of framedhealth messages[J]. European Journal of Social Psychology,2008,38:800-809.
[62] Riding R J, Caine T. Cognitive style and GCSE performance in mathematics[J]. English Languageand French Educational,1993,13(11):59-67.
[63] Riding R, Cheema I. Cognitive styles-an overview and integration[J]. Educational Psychology,1991,11(3-4):193-214.
[64] Rigoni D, Polezzi D, Rumiati R, Guarino R, Sartori G. When people matter more than money: anERPs study[J]. Brain Research Bulletin,2010,81:445-452.
[65] Robertson L C, Ivry R B. Hemispheric asymmetries, attention to visual and auditory primitives[J].Current Directions in Psychological Science,2000,9(2):59-63.
[66] Sanfey G., Rilling J K, Aronson J A, Nystrom, J D. The neural basis of economic decision-making inthe ultimatum game[J]. Science,2003,300:17551758.
[67] Shiloh S, Salton E, Sharabi D. Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles aspredictors of heuristic responses and framing effects[J]. Personality and Individual Differences,2002,32:415-429.
[68] Sieck W, Yates J F. Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997,70(3):207-219.
[69] Simon A F, Fagley N S, Halleran J G. Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differencesand cognitive processing[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2004,17:77-93.
[70] Simon H A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment[J]. Psychology Review,1956,63:129-138.
[71] Smith S M, Levin I P. Need for cognition and choice framing effect[J]. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking,1996,9.
[72] Sperry R W. Brain Research: some head-splitting implications[J]. The Voice,1966,15:11-16.
[73] Stanovich K E, West R F. Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects[J]. Thinking andReasoning,1998,4(4):289-317.
[74] Steul M. Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking behaviour? Someexperimental results[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology,2006,27(3):557-570.
[75] Sun Y, Bonini N, Su Y. Graph-framing effects in decision making[J]. Journal of Behavioural DecisionMaking,2012,25:491-501.
[76] Sun Y, Li S, Bonini N. Attribute salience in graphical representations affects evaluation[J]. Judgementand Decision Making,2010,5(3):151-158.
[77] Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, et al. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty[J]. Science,1965,150(3):1187-1188.attachment[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992,37:549-579.
[79] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty[J].Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,1992,5.
[80] Van Schie E C M, Van der Pligt J. Influencing risk preference in decision making: the effects offraming and salience[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995,63(3):264-275.
[81] Wang X T. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of unity axioms and socialcontext[J]. Cognition,1996,60:31-63.
[82] Wang X T. Self-framing of risky choice[J]. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making,2004,17:1-16.
[83] Wang X T, Simons F, Bredart S. Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice[J]. Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making,2001,14(1):1-15.
[84] Whitney P, Rinehart C A, Hinson J M. Framing effects under cognitive load: the role of workingmemory in risky decisions[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2008,15(6):1179-1184.
[85] Witkin H, Moore C, Goodenough D, et al. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles andtheir educational in placation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1997,47(1):1-64.
[86] Witkin H A. Origins of cognitive style. In Sheerer C. eds. Cognition, Theory, Research, Promise[M].New York, NY: Harper and Row,1964.
[87] Witkin H A, Goodenough D R. Cognitive styles: essence and origins[J]. International UniversitiesPress,1981:38-47,66-72.
[88]Wong K F E, Kwong J Y Y. Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2012,98(1):54-65.
[89]Xu Q, Shen Q, Chen P, Ma Q, Sun D, Pan Y. How an uncertain cue modulates subsequent monetary outcome evaluation:an ERP study[J]. Neuroscience Letters,2011,505:200-204.
[90]Yang J, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. The neural basis of risky decision-making in a blackjack task[J]. Neuroreport,2007,18(14):1507-1510.
[91]Yates J F. Judgement and decision making[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1990.
[92]Yates J F, Stone E R. Risk appraisal. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behaviour[M]. Chichester, England:John Wiley&Sons,1992.
[93]Yeung N, Sanfey A G. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain[J]. Journal of Neuroscience,2004,24:6258-6264.
[94]Yuan J J, Zhang Q L, Chen A T, et al. Are we sensitive to valence differences in emotionally negative stimuli? Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study[J]. Neuropsychologia,2007,45:2764-2771.
[95]程晓堂.英语学习策略[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2002.
[96]杜秀芳,王颖霞,赵树强.框架效应研究30年变迁[J].济南大学学报社会科学版,2010,20(3)：71-74.
[97]段锦云,曹忠良,娄玮瑜.框架效应及其认知机制的研究进展[J].应用心理学,2008,14(4)：378-384.
[98]段锦云,王重鸣.框架效应认知加工的脑半球定位研究[J].心理科学,2010,33(2)：8-11.
[99]方芳.从理性和有限理性角度看决策理论及其发展[J].经济问题探索,2005,8.
[100]高利苹,李纾,时勘.从对框架效应的分析看风险决策的神经基础[J].心理科学进展,2006,14(6).
[101]何飞.基于Kahneman前景理论的风险规避与风险寻求决策的脑机制研究[D].西安：第四军医大学,2009.
[102]胡斌武.学习风格与学习策略的选择[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996.
[103]李洁.个体决策风格及风险偏好研究——以SAT范式为测量方法[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
[104]梁竹苑,许燕,蒋奖.决策中个体差异研究现状评述[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(4)：689-694.
[105]刘涵慧,周洪雨,车宏生.人格特征对不同类型框架下决策的影响[J].心理科学,2010,33(4)：823-826.
[106]刘瑞琦,达红旗.认知风格分类研究[J].读与写杂志,2011,8(10)：78-79.
[107]刘雪峰,张志学,梁钧平.认知闭合需要、框架效应与决策偏好[J].心理学报,2007,39(4)：611-618.
[108]宋灵青,李玉环,刘儒德.情绪与认知方式对决策的影响[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2010,18(1)：116-118.
[109]孙彦,黄莉,刘扬.决策中的图形框架效应[J].心理科学进展,2012,20(11)：1718-1726。
[110]谭顶良.学习风格论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1995.
[111]王惠萍.认知风格对大学生不确定条件下判断和决策的影响[J].应用心理学,2006,12(4)：340-346.
[112]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2010.
[113]沃建中,闻莉,周少贤.认知风格理论研究的进展[J].心理与行为研究,2004,2.
[114]谢晓非,徐联仓.“风险”性质的讨论——一项联想测试[J].心理科学,1995,18(6)：331-333.
[115]赵立军.框架效应与公平判断[M].上海：华东师范大学,2010.
[116]赵树强.认知需要和材料特征对风险决策中框架效应的影响[M].济南：山东师范大学,2010.
[117]朱智贤.心理学大词典[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1989.
[118]庄锦英.情绪与决策的关系[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(4)：423-431.
[119]庄锦英.情绪、边框影响决策认知过程的实验研究[J].心理科学,2004,27(6)：1340-1343.
[2] Bartholow B D, Riordan M A, Saults J S, et al. Psychophysiological evidence of response conflict andstrategic control of responses in affective priming[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2009,45:655-666.
[3] Bateman C R, Fraedrich J P, Iyer R. Framing effects within the ethical decision making process ofconsumers[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,36(1):119-140.
[4] Bless H, Betsch T, Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions tothe Asian Disease problem[J]. European Journal of Social Psychology,1998,28:287-291.
[5] Botvinick M M, Braver T S, Barch D M, et al. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control[J].Psychological Review,2001,108:624-652.
[6] Breiter H C, Aharon I, Kahneman D, et al. Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy andexperience of monetary gains and loses[J]. Neuron,2001,30:619-639.
[7] Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Neuroscience: how neuroscience can inform economics[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2005,43(1):9-64.
[8] Carretie L, Hinojosa J A, Mercato J A F. Neural response to sustained affective visual stimulation usingan indirect task[J]. Experimental Brain Research,2006,174:630-637.
[9] Carretié L, Mercado J A F, Tapia M, et al. Emotion, attentioevent-related potentials[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2001,41:75-85.
[10] Carter C S, Braver T S, Barch D M, et al. Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the onlinemonitoring of performance[J]. Science,1998,280:747-749.
[11] Churchill G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs [J]. Journal ofMarketing Research,1979,16(1):64-73.
[12] De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, et al. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in humanbrain[J]. Science,2006,313(5):684-687.
[13] Edwards W. The theory of decision making[J]. Psychological Bulletin,1954,51:380-417.
[14] Fabiani M, Gratton G, Federmeier K D. Event-related brain potentials: methods, theory andapplications[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2007,85-119.
[15] Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choices: your money of your life[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997,71:355-373.
[16] Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects[J]. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1993,54.
[17] Gallagher P, Dagenbach D. Manipulating noise frequencies alters hemispheric contributions todecision making[J]. Brain and Cognition,2007,64(1):42-49.
[18] Gonzalez C, Dana J, Koshino H, Just M. The framing effect and risky decisions: examining cognitivefunctions with fMRI[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology,2005,26:1-20.
[19] Guo F Y, et al. An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing-anapplication of the eye-tracking technology[J]. Decision Support Systems,2009,6.
[20] Huang Y X, Luo Y J. Temporal course of emotional negativity bias: an ERP study[J]. NeuroscienceLetters,2006,398:91-96.
[21] Huff D. How to lie with statistics[M]. New York: Norton,1954.
[22] Igou E R, Bless H. On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function ofsubstantive processing[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2007,20:125-142.
[23] Kagan J L. Impulsive and reflective children: significance of conceptual tempo. In J. Dkumboltz (Ed),Learning and the educational process[M]. Chicago: Rand McNally,1996.
[24] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econornetrica,1979,47(2):263-292.
[25] Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice[J]. Science,1981,221:453-458.
[26] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames[J]. American Psychologist,1984,39(4):341-350.
[27] Kim S, Goldstein D, Hasher L, Zacks R T. Framing effects in younger and older adults[J]. The Journalof Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,2005,60.
[28] Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis[J]. OrganizationalBehavior&Human Decision Processes,1998,75:23-55.
[29] Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbedk M, Perner J. The effects of framing reflection, probability, andpayoff on risk preference in choice tasks[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1999,78.
[30] Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2002,89(2):1162-1175.
[31] Kuvaas B, Kaufmann G. Impact of mood, framing, and need for cognand confidence[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2004,17(1):59-74.
[32] Levin I P. Why do you and I make different decisions? Tracking individual differences in decisionmaking[J]. JDM Newsletter,1999, XV (4):5.
[33] Levin I P, Gaeth G J. Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1988,15:274-378.
[34] Levin I P, Gaeth G J, Schreiber J, et al. A new look at framing effect: distribution of effect sizes,individual differences, and independence of types of effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes,2002,88(1):411-429.
[35] Levin I P, Huneke M E, Jasper J D. Information processing at successive stages of decision making:need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses,2000,82(2):171-193.
[36] Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysisof framing effects[J]. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,1998,76(2):149-188.
[37] Loewenstein G F. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice[J]. Management science,1988,34.
[38] Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C K, et al. Risk as feelings[J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001,127(2):267-286.
[39] Ma Q G, Wang X Y, Dai S Y, et al. Event-related potential N270correlates of brand extension[J].NeuroReport,2007,18(10):1031-1034.
[40] Maguire M, Brier M R, Moore P S, et al. The influence of perceptual and semantic categorization oninhibitory processing as measured by the N2-P3response[J]. Brain and Cognition,2009,71:196-203.
[41] Martin L E, Potts G F. Impulsivity in decision-making: an event-related potential investigation[J].Personality and Individual Differences,2009,46:303-308.
[42] Mayerowitz B E, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes,intentions, and behaviour[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1987,21:171-186.
[43] McElroy T, Mascari D. When is it going to happen? How temporal distance influences processing forrisky-choice framing tasks[J]. Social cognition,2007,25(4):495-517.
[44] McElory T, Seta J J. Framing effects: an analytic-holistic perspective[J]. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology,2003,39:610-617.
[45] McElory T, Seta J J. On the other hand am I rational? Hemisphere activation and the framing effect[J].Brain and Cognition,2004,55.
[46] McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing the frame: How task goals determine the likelihood and direction offraming effects[J]. Judgement and Decision Making,2007,2(4):251-256.
[47] McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing effects: an analytic-holistic perspective[J]. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology,2003,39:610-617.
[48] McNeil B J, Pauker S G, Sox H C, et al. On the elicitation of references for alternative therapies[J].New England Journal of Medicine,1982,306:1259-1262.
[49] Mennes M, Wouters H, Bergh B V D, et al. ERP correlates of complex human decision making in agambling paradigm: detection and resolution of conflict[J]. Psychophysiology,2008,45:714-720.
[50] Mercado F, Carretié L, Tapia M, et al. The influence of emotional context on attention in anxioussubjects: neurophysiological correlates[J]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,2006,20:72-84.
[51] Moore S R, Smith R E, Gonzalez R. Personality and judgement heuristics: contextual and individualdifference interactions in social judgement[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1997,23:76-83.
[52] Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen J D. Decision making, the P3, and the locuscoeruleus-norepinephrine system[J]. Psychological Bulletin,2005,131:510-532.
[53] Paulus M P, Rogalsky C, Simmons A, et al. Increased activation in the right insula during risk-takingdecision making is related to her avoidance and neuroticism[J]. NeuroImage,2003,19:1439-1448.
[54] Piaget J. Quantification, conservation, and nativism[J]. Science,1968,162:976-979.
[55] Polezzi D, Lotto L, Daum I, et al. Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain[J]. Behavioral BrainResearch,2008,187:116-122.
[56] Polezzi D, Sartori G, Rumiati R, Vidotto G, Daum I. Brain correlates of risky decision-making[J].NeuroImage,2010,49:1886-1894.
[57] Qin J L, Xiao F, Li F, et al. The characteristic of extrapolation in numerical inductive inference: anERP study[J]. Brain Research,2009,1295:142-148.
[58] Raghubir P, Krishna A. Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach[J].Journal of Marketing Research,1999,36:313-326.
[59] Raghunathan R, Pham M T. All negative moods are not equal: motivational influences of anxiety andsadness on decision making[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1999,79(1):56-77.
[60] Reyna V F, Brainerd C J. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation,and conversion[J]. Journal of Behavior Decision Making,1991,4:249-262.
[61] Riet J V, Ruiter R A C, Werrij M Q, Vries H D. The influence of self-efficacy on the effects of framedhealth messages[J]. European Journal of Social Psychology,2008,38:800-809.
[62] Riding R J, Caine T. Cognitive style and GCSE performance in mathematics[J]. English Languageand French Educational,1993,13(11):59-67.
[63] Riding R, Cheema I. Cognitive styles-an overview and integration[J]. Educational Psychology,1991,11(3-4):193-214.
[64] Rigoni D, Polezzi D, Rumiati R, Guarino R, Sartori G. When people matter more than money: anERPs study[J]. Brain Research Bulletin,2010,81:445-452.
[65] Robertson L C, Ivry R B. Hemispheric asymmetries, attention to visual and auditory primitives[J].Current Directions in Psychological Science,2000,9(2):59-63.
[66] Sanfey G., Rilling J K, Aronson J A, Nystrom, J D. The neural basis of economic decision-making inthe ultimatum game[J]. Science,2003,300:17551758.
[67] Shiloh S, Salton E, Sharabi D. Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles aspredictors of heuristic responses and framing effects[J]. Personality and Individual Differences,2002,32:415-429.
[68] Sieck W, Yates J F. Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997,70(3):207-219.
[69] Simon A F, Fagley N S, Halleran J G. Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differencesand cognitive processing[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2004,17:77-93.
[70] Simon H A. Rational choice and the structure of the environment[J]. Psychology Review,1956,63:129-138.
[71] Smith S M, Levin I P. Need for cognition and choice framing effect[J]. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking,1996,9.
[72] Sperry R W. Brain Research: some head-splitting implications[J]. The Voice,1966,15:11-16.
[73] Stanovich K E, West R F. Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects[J]. Thinking andReasoning,1998,4(4):289-317.
[74] Steul M. Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking behaviour? Someexperimental results[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology,2006,27(3):557-570.
[75] Sun Y, Bonini N, Su Y. Graph-framing effects in decision making[J]. Journal of Behavioural DecisionMaking,2012,25:491-501.
[76] Sun Y, Li S, Bonini N. Attribute salience in graphical representations affects evaluation[J]. Judgementand Decision Making,2010,5(3):151-158.
[77] Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, et al. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty[J]. Science,1965,150(3):1187-1188.attachment[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992,37:549-579.
[79] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty[J].Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,1992,5.
[80] Van Schie E C M, Van der Pligt J. Influencing risk preference in decision making: the effects offraming and salience[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995,63(3):264-275.
[81] Wang X T. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of unity axioms and socialcontext[J]. Cognition,1996,60:31-63.
[82] Wang X T. Self-framing of risky choice[J]. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making,2004,17:1-16.
[83] Wang X T, Simons F, Bredart S. Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice[J]. Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making,2001,14(1):1-15.
[84] Whitney P, Rinehart C A, Hinson J M. Framing effects under cognitive load: the role of workingmemory in risky decisions[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2008,15(6):1179-1184.
[85] Witkin H, Moore C, Goodenough D, et al. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles andtheir educational in placation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1997,47(1):1-64.
[86] Witkin H A. Origins of cognitive style. In Sheerer C. eds. Cognition, Theory, Research, Promise[M].New York, NY: Harper and Row,1964.
[87] Witkin H A, Goodenough D R. Cognitive styles: essence and origins[J]. International UniversitiesPress,1981:38-47,66-72.
[88]Wong K F E, Kwong J Y Y. Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2012,98(1):54-65.
[89]Xu Q, Shen Q, Chen P, Ma Q, Sun D, Pan Y. How an uncertain cue modulates subsequent monetary outcome evaluation:an ERP study[J]. Neuroscience Letters,2011,505:200-204.
[90]Yang J, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. The neural basis of risky decision-making in a blackjack task[J]. Neuroreport,2007,18(14):1507-1510.
[91]Yates J F. Judgement and decision making[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1990.
[92]Yates J F, Stone E R. Risk appraisal. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behaviour[M]. Chichester, England:John Wiley&Sons,1992.
[93]Yeung N, Sanfey A G. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain[J]. Journal of Neuroscience,2004,24:6258-6264.
[94]Yuan J J, Zhang Q L, Chen A T, et al. Are we sensitive to valence differences in emotionally negative stimuli? Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study[J]. Neuropsychologia,2007,45:2764-2771.
[95]程晓堂.英语学习策略[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2002.
[96]杜秀芳,王颖霞,赵树强.框架效应研究30年变迁[J].济南大学学报社会科学版,2010,20(3)：71-74.
[97]段锦云,曹忠良,娄玮瑜.框架效应及其认知机制的研究进展[J].应用心理学,2008,14(4)：378-384.
[98]段锦云,王重鸣.框架效应认知加工的脑半球定位研究[J].心理科学,2010,33(2)：8-11.
[99]方芳.从理性和有限理性角度看决策理论及其发展[J].经济问题探索,2005,8.
[100]高利苹,李纾,时勘.从对框架效应的分析看风险决策的神经基础[J].心理科学进展,2006,14(6).
[101]何飞.基于Kahneman前景理论的风险规避与风险寻求决策的脑机制研究[D].西安：第四军医大学,2009.
[102]胡斌武.学习风格与学习策略的选择[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1996.
[103]李洁.个体决策风格及风险偏好研究——以SAT范式为测量方法[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
[104]梁竹苑,许燕,蒋奖.决策中个体差异研究现状评述[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(4)：689-694.
[105]刘涵慧,周洪雨,车宏生.人格特征对不同类型框架下决策的影响[J].心理科学,2010,33(4)：823-826.
[106]刘瑞琦,达红旗.认知风格分类研究[J].读与写杂志,2011,8(10)：78-79.
[107]刘雪峰,张志学,梁钧平.认知闭合需要、框架效应与决策偏好[J].心理学报,2007,39(4)：611-618.
[108]宋灵青,李玉环,刘儒德.情绪与认知方式对决策的影响[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2010,18(1)：116-118.
[109]孙彦,黄莉,刘扬.决策中的图形框架效应[J].心理科学进展,2012,20(11)：1718-1726。
[110]谭顶良.学习风格论[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,1995.
[111]王惠萍.认知风格对大学生不确定条件下判断和决策的影响[J].应用心理学,2006,12(4)：340-346.
[112]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2010.
[113]沃建中,闻莉,周少贤.认知风格理论研究的进展[J].心理与行为研究,2004,2.
[114]谢晓非,徐联仓.“风险”性质的讨论——一项联想测试[J].心理科学,1995,18(6)：331-333.
[115]赵立军.框架效应与公平判断[M].上海：华东师范大学,2010.
[116]赵树强.认知需要和材料特征对风险决策中框架效应的影响[M].济南：山东师范大学,2010.
[117]朱智贤.心理学大词典[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1989.
[118]庄锦英.情绪与决策的关系[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(4)：423-431.
[119]庄锦英.情绪、边框影响决策认知过程的实验研究[J].心理科学,2004,27(6)：1340-1343.