Suppr超能文献

比较得失。

Comparing gains and losses.

机构信息

Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.

出版信息

Psychol Sci. 2010 Oct;21(10):1438-45. doi: 10.1177/0956797610381504. Epub 2010 Aug 25.

Abstract

Loss aversion in choice is commonly assumed to arise from the anticipation that losses have a greater effect on feelings than gains, but evidence for this assumption in research on judged feelings is mixed. We argue that loss aversion is present in judged feelings when people compare gains and losses and assess them on a common scale. But many situations in which people judge and express their feelings lack these features. When judging their feelings about an outcome, people naturally consider a context of similar outcomes for comparison (e.g., they consider losses against other losses). This process permits gains and losses to be normed separately and produces psychological scale units that may not be the same in size or meaning for gains and losses. Our experiments show loss aversion in judged feelings for tasks that encourage gain-loss comparisons, but not tasks that discourage them, particularly those using bipolar scales.

摘要

在选择中,人们通常假设损失规避是由于预期损失对感觉的影响比收益更大,但在对判断感觉的研究中,这一假设的证据是混杂的。我们认为,当人们比较收益和损失,并在一个共同的尺度上评估它们时,损失规避就存在于判断的感觉中。但在人们判断和表达自己的感觉的许多情况下,缺乏这些特征。当人们判断他们对某一结果的感觉时,他们自然会考虑到一个类似结果的背景来进行比较(例如,他们将损失与其他损失进行比较)。这个过程允许收益和损失分别进行标准化,并产生可能在大小或意义上对收益和损失不相同的心理量表单位。我们的实验表明,在鼓励得失比较的任务中,人们会对判断的感觉产生损失规避,但在不鼓励得失比较的任务中,特别是在使用两极量表的任务中,不会产生损失规避。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验