Suppr超能文献

群体经验如何影响线索优先级?对歧义-矛盾假说的再检验。

How can group experience influence the cue priority? A re-examination of the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis.

机构信息

Department of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 12;2:265. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00265. eCollection 2011.

Abstract

Since the discovery of the "framing effect" by Kahneman and Tversky, the sensitivity of the "framing effect" - its appearance and in some cases its disappearance - has long been an object of study. However there is little agreement as to the reasons for this sensitivity. The "ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis" (Wang, 2008) aims to systematically explain the sensitivity of this effect by paying particular attention to people's cue priority: it states that the framing effect occurs when verbal framing is used to compensate for the absence of higher prioritized decision cues. The main purpose of our study is to examine and develop this hypothesis by examining cue priority given differences in people's "group experience." The main result is that the framing effect is absent when the choice problem is presented in a group context that reflects the actual size of the group that the participant has had experience with. Thus, in order to understand the choices that people make in life and death decisions, it is important to incorporate the decision maker's group experience explicitly into the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis.

摘要

自卡尼曼和特沃斯基发现“框架效应”以来,“框架效应”的敏感性——其出现以及在某些情况下的消失——一直是研究的对象。然而,对于这种敏感性的原因,人们的意见并不一致。“歧义-矛盾假说”(Wang,2008)旨在通过特别关注人们的线索优先级,系统地解释这种效应的敏感性:它指出,当使用口头框架来弥补缺乏更高优先级的决策线索时,就会出现框架效应。我们研究的主要目的是通过检查人们的“群体经验”差异来检验和发展这一假说。主要结果是,当选择问题以反映参与者实际经历过的群体规模的群体背景呈现时,框架效应不存在。因此,为了理解人们在生死决策中做出的选择,将决策者的群体经验明确纳入歧义-矛盾假说非常重要。

相似文献

1
How can group experience influence the cue priority? A re-examination of the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis.
Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 12;2:265. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00265. eCollection 2011.
3
The framing effect in medical decision-making: a review of the literature.
Psychol Health Med. 2013;18(6):645-53. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2013.766352. Epub 2013 Feb 6.
4
Risk communication and risky choice in context: ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Apr;1128:78-89. doi: 10.1196/annals.1399.009.
5
Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996 Nov;68(2):145-57. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0095.
6
Thinking Fast Increases Framing Effects in Risky Decision Making.
Psychol Sci. 2017 Apr;28(4):530-543. doi: 10.1177/0956797616689092. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
7
8
A framing effect of intertemporal and spatial choice.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023 Jun;76(6):1298-1320. doi: 10.1177/17470218221113519. Epub 2022 Aug 8.
9
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Nov;76(2):149-188. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.
10
Cultural Variability in the Attribute Framing Effect.
Front Psychol. 2021 Dec 20;12:754265. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754265. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes.
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 9;13(8):e0201547. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201547. eCollection 2018.
2
Brain areas activated by uncertain reward-based decision-making in healthy volunteers.
Neural Regen Res. 2013 Dec 15;8(35):3344-52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.35.009.

本文引用的文献

1
Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 29;106(52):22151-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908980106. Epub 2009 Dec 15.
2
Risk communication and risky choice in context: ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Apr;1128:78-89. doi: 10.1196/annals.1399.009.
3
Group size and the framing effect: threats to human beings and animals.
Mem Cognit. 2006 Jun;34(4):929-37. doi: 10.3758/bf03193438.
4
Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing.
Psychol Bull. 1997 Jan;121(1):3-19. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3.
5
Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996 Nov;68(2):145-57. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0095.
6
Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts.
Cognition. 1996 Jul;60(1):31-63. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00700-8.
7
Risky decision making and allocation of resources for leukemia and AIDS programs.
Health Psychol. 1993 Mar;12(2):110-7. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.12.2.110.
8
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683.
9
On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.
N Engl J Med. 1982 May 27;306(21):1259-62. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198205273062103.
10
Experiments in intergroup discrimination.
Sci Am. 1970 Nov;223(5):96-102.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验