• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

领域效应和金融风险态度。

Domain effects and financial risk attitudes.

机构信息

Division of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, W2 1NY, UK.

出版信息

Risk Anal. 2010 Sep;30(9):1374-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01433.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01433.x
PMID:20840489
Abstract

We investigated whether financial risk preferences are dependent on the financial domain (i.e., the context) in which the risky choice options are presented. Previous studies have demonstrated that risk attitudes change when gambles are framed as gains, losses, or as insurance. Our study explores this directly by offering choices between identical gambles, framed in terms of seven financial domains. Three factors were extracted, explaining 68.6% of the variance: Factor 1 (Positive)-opportunity to win, pension provision, and job salary change; Factor 2 (Positive-Complex)-investments and mortgage buying; Factor 3 (Negative)-possibility of loss and insurance. Inspection of the solution revealed context effects on risk perceptions across the seven scenarios. We also found that the commonly accepted assumption that women are more risk averse cannot be confirmed with the context structure suggested in this research; however, it is acknowledged that in the students' population the variance across genders might be considerably less. These results suggest that our financial risk attitude measures may be tapping into a stable aspect of "context dependence" of relevance to real-world decision making.

摘要

我们研究了财务风险偏好是否取决于风险选择选项呈现的金融领域(即背景)。先前的研究表明,当赌博被框定为收益、损失或保险时,风险态度会发生变化。我们的研究通过在七个金融领域提供相同赌博的选择来直接探讨这一点。提取了三个因素,解释了 68.6%的方差:因素 1(正-机会赢、养老金规定和工作工资变化);因素 2(正-复杂-投资和抵押贷款购买);因素 3(负-损失和保险的可能性)。对七种情况下风险认知的解决方案进行检查,发现了上下文效应对风险认知的影响。我们还发现,不能用本研究中提出的上下文结构来证实女性更厌恶风险的普遍假设;然而,人们承认,在学生群体中,性别差异可能会小得多。这些结果表明,我们的财务风险态度衡量标准可能反映了与现实世界决策相关的“背景依赖性”的稳定方面。

相似文献

1
Domain effects and financial risk attitudes.领域效应和金融风险态度。
Risk Anal. 2010 Sep;30(9):1374-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01433.x.
2
The effects of one night of sleep deprivation on known-risk and ambiguous-risk decisions.一晚睡眠剥夺对已知风险和模糊风险决策的影响。
J Sleep Res. 2007 Sep;16(3):245-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2007.00591.x.
3
[Contributions of parental and social influences to cannabis use in a non-clinical sample of adolescents].[父母及社会影响对青少年非临床样本中大麻使用的作用]
Encephale. 2008 Jan;34(1):8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2007.01.002. Epub 2007 Sep 4.
4
Discounting future green: money versus the environment.忽视未来的绿色:金钱与环境
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Aug;138(3):329-40. doi: 10.1037/a0016433.
5
My loss is your loss ... Sometimes: loss aversion and the effect of motivational biases.我的损失就是你的损失……有时:损失厌恶与动机偏差的影响。
Risk Anal. 2008 Aug;28(4):929-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01065.x. Epub 2008 Jun 28.
6
Do risk attitudes differ across domains and respondent types?风险态度在不同领域和受访者类型之间是否存在差异?
Med Decis Making. 2007 May-Jun;27(3):281-7. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07300602.
7
Effects of monetary reserves and rate of gain on human risky choice under budget constraints.预算约束下货币储备和收益率对人类风险选择的影响。
Behav Processes. 2008 Jul;78(3):358-73. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.016. Epub 2008 Feb 5.
8
[Risk-taking in adolescence: A neuroeconomics approach].[青少年的冒险行为:一种神经经济学方法]
Encephale. 2010 Apr;36(2):147-54. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2009.06.004. Epub 2009 Sep 22.
9
Brain correlates of risky decision-making.大脑与冒险决策的关联。
Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 15;49(2):1886-94. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.068. Epub 2009 Sep 15.
10
Evolution of college students' AIDS-related behavioral responses, attitudes, knowledge, and fear.大学生与艾滋病相关的行为反应、态度、知识和恐惧的演变。
AIDS Educ Prev. 1990 Winter;2(4):322-37.

引用本文的文献

1
Moderate stability of risk and ambiguity attitudes across quantitative and qualitative decisions.在定量和定性决策中,风险和模糊态度具有适度稳定性。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 24;15(1):3119. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-87644-x.
2
Participants' Utilitarian Choice Is Influenced by Gamble Presentation and Age.参与者的功利主义选择受赌博呈现方式和年龄的影响。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Jun 26;14(7):536. doi: 10.3390/bs14070536.
3
How do emotions respond to outcome values and influence choice?情绪如何对结果价值做出反应并影响选择?
Psychol Res. 2024 Nov;88(8):2234-2250. doi: 10.1007/s00426-024-02001-3. Epub 2024 Jul 10.
4
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of Risk and Ambiguity in Monetary and Medical Decision-Making.定量结果与定性结果:货币与医疗决策中风险和模糊性的纵向研究
Res Sq. 2024 Jun 24:rs.3.rs-4249490. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4249490/v1.
5
Life and Death Decisions and COVID-19: Investigating and Modeling the Effect of Framing, Experience, and Context on Preference Reversals in the Asian Disease Problem.生死决策与 COVID-19:调查和建模框架、经验和情境对亚洲疾病问题中偏好反转的影响。
Top Cogn Sci. 2022 Oct;14(4):800-824. doi: 10.1111/tops.12607. Epub 2022 Mar 21.
6
Choice Under Risk: How Occupation Influences Preferences.风险下的选择:职业如何影响偏好。
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 30;10:2003. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02003. eCollection 2019.
7
Understanding Risky Behavior: The Influence of Cognitive, Emotional and Hormonal Factors on Decision-Making under Risk.理解危险行为:认知、情感和激素因素对风险决策的影响
Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 1;8:102. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00102. eCollection 2017.
8
How People's Motivational System and Situational Motivation Influence Their Risky Financial Choices.人们的动机系统和情境动机如何影响他们的风险金融选择。
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 31;7:1360. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01360. eCollection 2016.
9
Ten most important accomplishments in risk analysis, 1980-2010.1980年至2010年风险分析领域的十项最重要成就。
Risk Anal. 2012 May;32(5):771-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01817.x.
10
The non-existence of risk attitude.风险态度的不存在。
Front Psychol. 2011 Nov 15;2:303. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00303. eCollection 2011.