• 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

信息过载还是搜索放大风险?设定大小和顺序对经验决策的影响。

Information overload or search-amplified risk? Set size and order effects on decisions from experience.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Gibett Hill Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK,

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Oct;20(5):1023-31. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0422-3.

DOI:10.3758/s13423-013-0422-3
PMID:23516097
Abstract

How do changes in choice-set size influence information search and subsequent decisions? Moreover, does information overload influence information processing with larger choice sets? We investigated these questions by letting people freely explore sets of gambles before choosing one of them, with the choice sets either increasing or decreasing in number for each participant (from two to 32 gambles). Set size influenced information search, with participants taking more samples overall, but sampling a smaller proportion of gambles and taking fewer samples per gamble, when set sizes were larger. The order of choice sets also influenced search, with participants sampling from more gambles and taking more samples overall if they started with smaller as opposed to larger choice sets. Inconsistent with information overload, information processing appeared consistent across set sizes and choice order conditions, reliably favoring gambles with higher sample means. Despite the lack of evidence for information overload, changes in information search did lead to systematic changes in choice: People who started with smaller choice sets were more likely to choose gambles with the highest expected values, but only for small set sizes. For large set sizes, the increase in total samples increased the likelihood of encountering rare events at the same time that the reduction in samples per gamble amplified the effect of these rare events when they occurred-what we call search-amplified risk. This led to riskier choices for individuals whose choices most closely followed the sample mean.

摘要

选择集大小的变化如何影响信息搜索和随后的决策?此外,信息过载是否会影响较大选择集的信息处理?我们通过让人们在选择之前自由探索一系列赌博,来研究这些问题,每个参与者的选择集数量增加或减少(从两个到 32 个赌博)。选择集的大小影响了信息搜索,参与者总体上采集了更多的样本,但采集的赌博比例较小,每个赌博采集的样本也较少。选择集的顺序也影响了搜索,如果参与者从较小的选择集开始,而不是从较大的选择集开始,他们会从更多的赌博中采样,并总体上采集更多的样本。与信息过载不一致的是,信息处理在选择集大小和选择顺序条件下似乎是一致的,可靠地倾向于样本均值较高的赌博。尽管没有证据表明存在信息过载,但信息搜索的变化确实导致了选择的系统变化:从较小的选择集开始的人更有可能选择预期价值最高的赌博,但仅在选择集较小时如此。对于较大的选择集,总样本的增加增加了遇到稀有事件的可能性,而每个赌博样本的减少放大了这些稀有事件发生时的影响——我们称之为搜索放大的风险。这导致那些选择最接近样本均值的个体做出更冒险的选择。

相似文献

1
Information overload or search-amplified risk? Set size and order effects on decisions from experience.信息过载还是搜索放大风险?设定大小和顺序对经验决策的影响。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Oct;20(5):1023-31. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0422-3.
2
Probability Distortion Depends on Choice Sequence in Rhesus Monkeys.恒河猴的选择序列影响概率失真。
J Neurosci. 2019 Apr 10;39(15):2915-2929. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1454-18.2018. Epub 2019 Jan 31.
3
Salience-Driven Value Construction for Adaptive Choice under Risk.基于突显的风险自适应选择下的价值建构。
J Neurosci. 2019 Jun 26;39(26):5195-5209. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2522-18.2019. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
4
Gambles vs. quasi-realistic scenarios: expectations to find probability and risk-defusing information.赌博与准现实情景:寻找概率及降低风险信息的期望
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Feb;127(2):222-36. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.002. Epub 2007 Jun 29.
5
Changing plans: dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point.改变计划:动态不一致性以及经验对参照点的影响
Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):547-54. doi: 10.3758/bf03212962.
6
Sizing up information distortion: quantifying its effect on the subjective values of choice options.估量信息扭曲:量化其对选择选项的主观价值的影响。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):349-56. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0184-8.
7
Negative emotion or problem content? Testing explanations of the peanuts effect.负面情绪还是问题内容?检验花生效应的解释。
Psychol Rep. 2015 Feb;116(1):1-12. doi: 10.2466/15.04.PR0.116k15w5. Epub 2015 Jan 28.
8
The Disjunction Effect in two-stage simulated gambles. An experimental study and comparison of a heuristic logistic, Markov and quantum-like model.两阶段模拟赌博中的分离效应。启发式逻辑斯蒂、马尔可夫和类量子模型的实验研究与比较。
Cogn Psychol. 2020 Mar;117:101262. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101262. Epub 2019 Dec 20.
9
Acceptance of mixed gambles is sensitive to the range of gains and losses experienced, and estimates of lambda (λ) are not a reliable measure of loss aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe (2020).混合赌博的接受程度对所经历的收益和损失范围很敏感,并且 λ 的估计值不能可靠地衡量损失厌恶:对安德烈和德朗热(2020)的回复。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Dec;150(12):2666-2670. doi: 10.1037/xge0001054.
10
The affective impact of financial skewness on neural activity and choice.金融偏度对神经活动和选择的情感影响。
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 15;6(2):e16838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016838.

引用本文的文献

1
The Future of Decisions From Experience: Connecting Real-World Decision Problems to Cognitive Processes.经验决策的未来:将现实世界的决策问题与认知过程联系起来。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024 Jan;19(1):82-102. doi: 10.1177/17456916231179138. Epub 2023 Jun 30.
2
Technology and democracy: a paradox wrapped in a contradiction inside an irony.技术与民主:一个包裹在矛盾之中、深藏于讽刺之内的悖论。
Mem Mind Media. 2021 Dec 9;1. doi: 10.1017/mem.2021.7. eCollection 2022.
3
Multiscale Computation and Dynamic Attention in Biological and Artificial Intelligence.

本文引用的文献

1
Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition.是的,它们可以!根据信息获取情况对小概率进行适当加权。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Nov;138(3):390-6. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.09.005. Epub 2011 Oct 5.
2
The central executive as a search process: priming exploration and exploitation across domains.中央执行作为一个搜索过程:在不同领域中进行探索和开发的启动。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 Nov;139(4):590-609. doi: 10.1037/a0020666.
3
Information search in decisions from experience. Do our patterns of sampling foreshadow our decisions?
生物与人工智能中的多尺度计算与动态注意力
Brain Sci. 2020 Jun 20;10(6):396. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10060396.
4
Influence of an Intermediate Option on the Description-Experience Gap and Information Search.中间选项对描述-体验差距及信息搜索的影响
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 28;9:364. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00364. eCollection 2018.
5
A normative inference approach for optimal sample sizes in decisions from experience.一种用于基于经验的决策中最优样本量的规范推理方法。
Front Psychol. 2015 Sep 10;6:1342. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01342. eCollection 2015.
6
Sensing risk, fearing uncertainty: systems science approach to change.感知风险,畏惧不确定性:变革的系统科学方法。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2014 Mar 31;8:30. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2014.00030. eCollection 2014.
从经验中进行信息搜索。我们的抽样模式是否预示着我们的决策?
Psychol Sci. 2010 Dec;21(12):1787-92. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387443. Epub 2010 Oct 25.
4
Choice set size and decision making: the case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.选择集大小与决策:以医疗保险处方药计划为例。
Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5):582-93. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09357793. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
5
The description-experience gap in risky choice.风险选择中的描述-体验差距。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Dec;13(12):517-23. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004. Epub 2009 Oct 14.
6
Less may be more when choosing is difficult: choice complexity and too much choice.当选择困难时,少可能就是多:选择的复杂性与过多的选择。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Jan;133(1):45-50. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.005. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
7
Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)?当罕见结果出现(很少发生)时,概率是否被过度加权或加权不足?
Psychol Sci. 2009 Apr;20(4):473-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02319.x.
8
Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choices.作为选择数量参数变化函数的购买行为。
Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):369-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01906.x.
9
Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice.基于经验的决策以及罕见事件在风险选择中的影响。
Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):534-9. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x.
10
Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation.预测人类和低等动物的风险敏感性:作为方差或变异系数的风险
Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):430-45. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430.