认知需要和材料特征对风险决策中框架效应的影响
|
摘要
风险决策中的框架效应(framing effect)最初是由Tversky与Kahneman所发现,它是指在同一背景下由于语义描述的不同(受益描述与受损描述),决策者对同一问题具有不同的风险偏好。在框架效应提出以后,很多学者对其进行了颇有意义的探讨。关于框架效应的理论解释主要有:前景理论、模糊痕迹理论及齐差求辨模型三种理论。前人多数研究已经证实了框架效应的存在,但也有研究没有发现框架效应的存在。研究者认为诸如:决策者的个体特征(如年龄、认知能力、人格、认知风格、认知加工过程等)、背景材料的特征(如数量、概率、材料与被试的互动等)等因素会影响框架效应的产生。本研究在以往研究的基础上,针对认知需要这种个体特征和背景材料的特征对框架效应的影响进行了研究。
本研究调查了大学生240人,分两个实验,实验材料分别为经典“股票问题”及“海啸问题”,采用了2×2×2的组间设计,自变量为框架(正框架,负框架)、认知需要(高认知需要,低认知需要)及材料特征。实验一中,材料特征为事件自我关联性(有自我关联,无自我关联);实验二中,材料特征为时间关联(近时间关联,远时间关联)。因变量为风险偏好,即被试在6点量表上选择的对两种方案的赞成程度。
本研究得出以下结论:
(1)总体而言,被试在不同框架下表现出不同的风险选择,出现了明显的框架效应。即在正框架下,被试倾向于选择保守方案,在负框架下,被试倾向于选择冒险方案。
(2)与自我有关联的材料对框架效应有显著的影响,在与自我有关联的情境下,被试并没有表现出明显的框架效应;在与自我无关联的情境下,被试却表现出了明显的框架效应。时间关联对框架效应没有显著影响,即在近时间关联和远时间关联情况下,被试均表现出了框架效应。
(3)认知需要对框架效应有显著的影响,高认知需要的个体在不同的问题表征下,没有表现出明显的框架效应;低认知需要的个体在不同的问题表征下却表现出了明显的框架效应。
The different describing ways can cause the deeision makers to have the different risk Preferences to the same problem, the Phenomenon were called framing effect. Since the“framing effects”has been presented by Kahneman and Tversky in 1979 as an important issue in risky decision making, many studies have confirmed its existence. But there are also some studies which have not found it. Thus some researchers suggest that there are some factors, such as individual traits, task context, affect framing effects. In this study, we examined whether Need for cognition and material characteristics affects framing effects in risky decision.
Two experiments were conducted in this study. In experiment 1, We used typical“Stock Problem’’as the experimental material to examined whether in risky decision making self- related task and Need for cognition affects framing effects. In experiment 2, We used typical“Tsunami Problem’’as the experimental material to examined whether in risky decision making time- related task and Need for cognition affects framing effects. The experiment is 2×2×2 between groups design. The independent variables was frame (positive frame, negative frame), the Need for cognition (high Need for cognition , low Need for cognition) and material characteristics . In experiment 1, the material was characterized by self- related events (self- related task, no self-related task); In experiment 2, the material was characterized by time-correlated (correlation close to the time, much time correlation). Dependent variable was the risk preferences defined in the 6 point scale test on the choice of two degree programs in favor.
The following conclusions were drawn from this research:
(1) Overall, the frames (negative frames, positive frames) have strong influence on risk choice in typical“Stock Problem’’and typical“Tsunami Problem’’
(2) Material characteristics and frame had strong influence on framing effects, Participants responding to no self-related options showed the framing effects, but participants responding to self-related options didn’t show the framing effects.
(3) Need for cognition and frame had strong influence on framing effects, The low Need for cognition participants showed the framing effects, but The high Need for cognition participants didn’t show out the framing effects.
本研究调查了大学生240人,分两个实验,实验材料分别为经典“股票问题”及“海啸问题”,采用了2×2×2的组间设计,自变量为框架(正框架,负框架)、认知需要(高认知需要,低认知需要)及材料特征。实验一中,材料特征为事件自我关联性(有自我关联,无自我关联);实验二中,材料特征为时间关联(近时间关联,远时间关联)。因变量为风险偏好,即被试在6点量表上选择的对两种方案的赞成程度。
本研究得出以下结论:
(1)总体而言,被试在不同框架下表现出不同的风险选择,出现了明显的框架效应。即在正框架下,被试倾向于选择保守方案,在负框架下,被试倾向于选择冒险方案。
(2)与自我有关联的材料对框架效应有显著的影响,在与自我有关联的情境下,被试并没有表现出明显的框架效应;在与自我无关联的情境下,被试却表现出了明显的框架效应。时间关联对框架效应没有显著影响,即在近时间关联和远时间关联情况下,被试均表现出了框架效应。
(3)认知需要对框架效应有显著的影响,高认知需要的个体在不同的问题表征下,没有表现出明显的框架效应;低认知需要的个体在不同的问题表征下却表现出了明显的框架效应。
The different describing ways can cause the deeision makers to have the different risk Preferences to the same problem, the Phenomenon were called framing effect. Since the“framing effects”has been presented by Kahneman and Tversky in 1979 as an important issue in risky decision making, many studies have confirmed its existence. But there are also some studies which have not found it. Thus some researchers suggest that there are some factors, such as individual traits, task context, affect framing effects. In this study, we examined whether Need for cognition and material characteristics affects framing effects in risky decision.
Two experiments were conducted in this study. In experiment 1, We used typical“Stock Problem’’as the experimental material to examined whether in risky decision making self- related task and Need for cognition affects framing effects. In experiment 2, We used typical“Tsunami Problem’’as the experimental material to examined whether in risky decision making time- related task and Need for cognition affects framing effects. The experiment is 2×2×2 between groups design. The independent variables was frame (positive frame, negative frame), the Need for cognition (high Need for cognition , low Need for cognition) and material characteristics . In experiment 1, the material was characterized by self- related events (self- related task, no self-related task); In experiment 2, the material was characterized by time-correlated (correlation close to the time, much time correlation). Dependent variable was the risk preferences defined in the 6 point scale test on the choice of two degree programs in favor.
The following conclusions were drawn from this research:
(1) Overall, the frames (negative frames, positive frames) have strong influence on risk choice in typical“Stock Problem’’and typical“Tsunami Problem’’
(2) Material characteristics and frame had strong influence on framing effects, Participants responding to no self-related options showed the framing effects, but participants responding to self-related options didn’t show the framing effects.
(3) Need for cognition and frame had strong influence on framing effects, The low Need for cognition participants showed the framing effects, but The high Need for cognition participants didn’t show out the framing effects.
引文
1.高利苹,李纾,石勘.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).
2.何贵兵,梁社红,刘剑.风险偏好预测中的性别差异和框架效应.应用心理学,2000,8(4):16一23
3.黄砾卉.不同框架下的风险决策倾向研究.硕士学位论文,西南大学,2006
4.李劲松,王重鸣.风险偏好类型与风险判断模式的实验分析.人类工效学,1998,4(3):17一20
5.李纾,房永青,张迅捷.再探框架对风险决策行为的影响.心理学报,2000,32(2):229一234
6.梁竹苑,许燕,蒋奖.决策中个体差异研究现状述评.心理科学进展,2007,15(4):689-694
7.孙彦.风险决策中框定效应的实验研究.硕士学位论文,湖南师范大学,2003
8.谢晓非,王晓田.成就动机与机会—威胁认知[J].心理学报, 2002 , (34 ).
9.谢晓非、王晓田.成就动机与机会一威胁认知心理学报.2002,34(2):192一199
10.殷晓莉.决策不一致性的心理机制探讨[D]. .长沙:湖南师范大学, 2004.
11.张结海、张玲.现实理性:一个理解经济行为的框架.心理科学进展,2003,11(3):267一273
12.张文慧,王晓田.自我框架、风险认知和风险选择[J].心理学报. 2008, 40(6)
13.张银玲,苗丹民,罗正学等.正负信息框架下人格特征对决策的影响作用.第四军医大学学报,2006,27(4):363- 366.
14.庄锦英.决策心理学.上海教育出版社,2006
15.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).
16. Arrow, K J. Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics. Economic Inquiry,1982,20:1一9
17. Bateman C R, Fraedrich J P, Iyer R. Framing effects within the ethical decision making process of consumers [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,36(1/2).
18. Bless H, Betseh T, & Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: The impact ofcontext cues on solutions to the Asian disease problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1998, 28:287-291
19. Ellen P,Levin I P. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options [J]. Judgment and Decision Making, 2008, 3(6).
20. Elliott Catherine S,Robert B Archibald. Subjective framing and attitudes towards risk [J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1989, (10).
21. Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 1997, 71: 355-373
22. Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life [J]? Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997, 71(3).
23. Fagley N S, Miller P M. The effect of framing on choice: interaction with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1990, 16:496-510
24. Fagley N S,Miller P M. The effect of farming on choice: interaction with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex [J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1990, (16).
25. Feng-yang Guo, et al. An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing—an application of the eye-tracking technology [J]. Decision Support Systems, 2009, (6).
26. Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects [J]. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1993, (54).
27. Ganzach Y, Karsahi N. Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995, (32).
28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, Values, Frames.UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 17-43
29. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47:263-291
30. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk [J].Econometrica, 1979, (47).
31. Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the Psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211:453-458
32. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 2003, 9(58):697-720
33. Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbedk M,Perner J. The effects of framing,reflection,probability,and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Progress,1999, (78).
34. LeBoeuf R A, Shafir E. Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2003, 16:77-92
35. Levin I P, Gaeth G J, Schneider S L, Lauriola M. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of framing [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2002, (88).
36. Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects [J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76(2).
37. Li S, Adams A S. Is there something more important behind framing? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995, 62:216-219
38. Li S, Adams A S. Is there something more important behind framing [J]? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995, (62).
39. Li S. Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined? Journal of Economic Psychology, 1998, 19:135-155
40. Li S. What is wrong with Allais’certainty effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1993, 6:271-281
41. Loewenstein G F. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice [J]. Management science,1988, (34).
42. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1990, (27).
43. McElroy T, Mascari D. When is it going to happen? How temporal distance influences processing for risky-choice framing tasks [J]. Social cognition, 2007,25(4).
44. McElroy T, Seta J J, Waring D A. Reflections of the self: how self-esteem determines decision framing and increases risk taking [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2007, (20)..
45. McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003, 39:610-617
46. McElroy T, Seta J J. On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and tne framing effect [J]. Brain and Cognition, 2004, (55).
47. McElory T,Seta J J. Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2003, (39).
48. Milch K F, Weber E U, Appelt K C, Handgraaf M J J, Krantz D H.From individual preference construction to group decisions: raming effects and group processes [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009, (108).
49. Millar M G, Millar K U. Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influences of message framing and issue involvement [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000, (30).
50. Reyna V F, Brainerd C J. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1991, (4)
51. Simon A F, Fagley N S, Halleran J G. Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2004, (17).
52. Smith S M, Levin I P. Need for cognition and choice framing effects [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 1996 , (9)
53. Sunghan Kim, David Goldstein, Lynn Hasher, Rose T. Zacks. Framing effects in younger and older odults [J]. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 2005, (60).
54. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty [J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty ,1992 ,(5).
55. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice [J]. Science, 1981, (221).
56. Wang X T. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of unity axioms and social context. Cognition, 1996, 60:31-63
57. Wang X T. Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains [J]. Organizational behavior & human decision processes, 1996, 68(2).
58. Wang X T. Self-framing of risky choice [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2004, (17).
59. Weber E U, Johnson E J, Milch K F, Chang H, Brodscholl J C, Gikdstein D G.. Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query theory account [J]. Psychological science,2007, (18).
2.何贵兵,梁社红,刘剑.风险偏好预测中的性别差异和框架效应.应用心理学,2000,8(4):16一23
3.黄砾卉.不同框架下的风险决策倾向研究.硕士学位论文,西南大学,2006
4.李劲松,王重鸣.风险偏好类型与风险判断模式的实验分析.人类工效学,1998,4(3):17一20
5.李纾,房永青,张迅捷.再探框架对风险决策行为的影响.心理学报,2000,32(2):229一234
6.梁竹苑,许燕,蒋奖.决策中个体差异研究现状述评.心理科学进展,2007,15(4):689-694
7.孙彦.风险决策中框定效应的实验研究.硕士学位论文,湖南师范大学,2003
8.谢晓非,王晓田.成就动机与机会—威胁认知[J].心理学报, 2002 , (34 ).
9.谢晓非、王晓田.成就动机与机会一威胁认知心理学报.2002,34(2):192一199
10.殷晓莉.决策不一致性的心理机制探讨[D]. .长沙:湖南师范大学, 2004.
11.张结海、张玲.现实理性:一个理解经济行为的框架.心理科学进展,2003,11(3):267一273
12.张文慧,王晓田.自我框架、风险认知和风险选择[J].心理学报. 2008, 40(6)
13.张银玲,苗丹民,罗正学等.正负信息框架下人格特征对决策的影响作用.第四军医大学学报,2006,27(4):363- 366.
14.庄锦英.决策心理学.上海教育出版社,2006
15.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).
16. Arrow, K J. Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics. Economic Inquiry,1982,20:1一9
17. Bateman C R, Fraedrich J P, Iyer R. Framing effects within the ethical decision making process of consumers [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,36(1/2).
18. Bless H, Betseh T, & Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: The impact ofcontext cues on solutions to the Asian disease problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1998, 28:287-291
19. Ellen P,Levin I P. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options [J]. Judgment and Decision Making, 2008, 3(6).
20. Elliott Catherine S,Robert B Archibald. Subjective framing and attitudes towards risk [J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1989, (10).
21. Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 1997, 71: 355-373
22. Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life [J]? Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997, 71(3).
23. Fagley N S, Miller P M. The effect of framing on choice: interaction with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1990, 16:496-510
24. Fagley N S,Miller P M. The effect of farming on choice: interaction with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex [J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1990, (16).
25. Feng-yang Guo, et al. An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing—an application of the eye-tracking technology [J]. Decision Support Systems, 2009, (6).
26. Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects [J]. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1993, (54).
27. Ganzach Y, Karsahi N. Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995, (32).
28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, Values, Frames.UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 17-43
29. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47:263-291
30. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk [J].Econometrica, 1979, (47).
31. Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the Psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211:453-458
32. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 2003, 9(58):697-720
33. Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbedk M,Perner J. The effects of framing,reflection,probability,and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Progress,1999, (78).
34. LeBoeuf R A, Shafir E. Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2003, 16:77-92
35. Levin I P, Gaeth G J, Schneider S L, Lauriola M. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of framing [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2002, (88).
36. Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects [J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76(2).
37. Li S, Adams A S. Is there something more important behind framing? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995, 62:216-219
38. Li S, Adams A S. Is there something more important behind framing [J]? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995, (62).
39. Li S. Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined? Journal of Economic Psychology, 1998, 19:135-155
40. Li S. What is wrong with Allais’certainty effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1993, 6:271-281
41. Loewenstein G F. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice [J]. Management science,1988, (34).
42. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1990, (27).
43. McElroy T, Mascari D. When is it going to happen? How temporal distance influences processing for risky-choice framing tasks [J]. Social cognition, 2007,25(4).
44. McElroy T, Seta J J, Waring D A. Reflections of the self: how self-esteem determines decision framing and increases risk taking [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2007, (20)..
45. McElroy T, Seta J J. Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003, 39:610-617
46. McElroy T, Seta J J. On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and tne framing effect [J]. Brain and Cognition, 2004, (55).
47. McElory T,Seta J J. Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2003, (39).
48. Milch K F, Weber E U, Appelt K C, Handgraaf M J J, Krantz D H.From individual preference construction to group decisions: raming effects and group processes [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009, (108).
49. Millar M G, Millar K U. Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influences of message framing and issue involvement [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000, (30).
50. Reyna V F, Brainerd C J. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1991, (4)
51. Simon A F, Fagley N S, Halleran J G. Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2004, (17).
52. Smith S M, Levin I P. Need for cognition and choice framing effects [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 1996 , (9)
53. Sunghan Kim, David Goldstein, Lynn Hasher, Rose T. Zacks. Framing effects in younger and older odults [J]. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 2005, (60).
54. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty [J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty ,1992 ,(5).
55. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice [J]. Science, 1981, (221).
56. Wang X T. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of unity axioms and social context. Cognition, 1996, 60:31-63
57. Wang X T. Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains [J]. Organizational behavior & human decision processes, 1996, 68(2).
58. Wang X T. Self-framing of risky choice [J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2004, (17).
59. Weber E U, Johnson E J, Milch K F, Chang H, Brodscholl J C, Gikdstein D G.. Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query theory account [J]. Psychological science,2007, (18).