• 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

从专家的角度出发能否消除人类决策中的偏差?以风险和延迟收益为例。

Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.

作者信息

Białek Michał, Sawicki Przemysław

机构信息

Department of Economic Psychology, Centre for Economic Psychology and Decision Sciences, Kozminski University Warsaw, Poland.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 4;5:989. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989. eCollection 2014.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989
PMID:25237307
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4154394/
Abstract

In several previously reported studies, participants increased their normative correctness after being instructed to think hypothetically, specifically taking the perspective of an expert or researcher (Beatty and Thompson, 2012; Morsanyi and Handley, 2012). The goal of this paper was to investigate how this manipulation affects risky or delayed payoffs. In two studies, participants (n = 193) were tested online (in exchange for money) using the adjusting procedure. Individuals produced certain/immediate equivalents for risky/delayed gains. Participants in the control group were solving the problem from their own perspective, while participants in the experimental group were asked to imagine "what would a reliable and honest advisor advise them to do." Study 1 showed that when taking the perspective of an expert, participants in experimental group became more risk aversive compared to participants in the control group. Additionally, their certain equivalents diverged from the expected value to a greater extent. The results obtained from the experimental group in Study 2 suggest that participants became less impulsive, which means they tried to inhibit their preferences. This favors the explanation, which suggests that the perspective shift forced individuals to override their intuitions with the social norms. Individuals expect to be blamed for impatience or risk taking thus expected an expert to advise them to be more patient and risk aversive.

摘要

在之前的几项研究中,参与者在被指示进行假设性思考后,尤其是从专家或研究人员的角度思考后,其规范性正确性有所提高(贝蒂和汤普森,2012年;莫尔萨尼和汉德利,2012年)。本文的目的是研究这种操作如何影响风险或延迟收益。在两项研究中,使用调整程序对193名参与者进行了在线测试(参与者可获得报酬)。参与者针对风险/延迟收益给出确定/即时等价物。对照组的参与者从自身角度解决问题,而实验组的参与者则被要求想象“一位可靠且诚实的顾问会建议他们怎么做”。研究1表明,当从专家角度思考时,实验组的参与者比对照组的参与者变得更加厌恶风险。此外,他们的确定等价物与预期价值的差异更大。研究2中实验组得到的结果表明,参与者变得不那么冲动,这意味着他们试图抑制自己的偏好。这支持了一种解释,即视角转变迫使个体用社会规范来推翻自己的直觉。个体预计会因不耐烦或冒险而受到指责,因此期望专家建议他们更有耐心并厌恶风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/0611dc4c697b/fpsyg-05-00989-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/62a8cd92a789/fpsyg-05-00989-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/8738f9010a2c/fpsyg-05-00989-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/ec301403d397/fpsyg-05-00989-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/d0d8c1e8e67d/fpsyg-05-00989-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/0611dc4c697b/fpsyg-05-00989-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/62a8cd92a789/fpsyg-05-00989-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/8738f9010a2c/fpsyg-05-00989-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/ec301403d397/fpsyg-05-00989-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/d0d8c1e8e67d/fpsyg-05-00989-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0161/4154394/0611dc4c697b/fpsyg-05-00989-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.从专家的角度出发能否消除人类决策中的偏差?以风险和延迟收益为例。
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 4;5:989. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989. eCollection 2014.
2
Standing in Your Peer's Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity.设身处地为同伴着想会损害你的成就:风险态度和冲动性方面的自我与他人差异。
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 19;7:197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00197. eCollection 2016.
3
The effect of acute pain on risky and intertemporal choice.急性疼痛对风险和跨期选择的影响。
Exp Econ. 2017;20(4):878-893. doi: 10.1007/s10683-017-9515-6. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
4
Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy.青少年决策中的风险与理性:对理论、实践和公共政策的启示。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006 Sep;7(1):1-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x. Epub 2006 Sep 1.
5
Common and distinct neural correlates of intertemporal and risky decision-making: Meta-analytical evidence for the dual-system theory.时间和风险决策的共同和独特神经关联:双重系统理论的元分析证据。
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022 Oct;141:104851. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104851. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
6
Confidence and risky decision-making in gambling disorder.赌博障碍中的自信与冒险决策。
J Behav Addict. 2023 Aug 21;12(3):840-846. doi: 10.1556/2006.2023.00041. Print 2023 Oct 5.
7
Frontal, Striatal, and Medial Temporal Sensitivity to Value Distinguishes Risk-Taking from Risk-Aversive Older Adults during Decision Making.额叶、纹状体和内侧颞叶对价值的敏感性在决策过程中区分了冒险型与规避风险型老年人。
J Neurosci. 2016 Dec 7;36(49):12498-12509. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1386-16.2016.
8
Developmental changes and individual differences in risk and perspective taking in adolescence.青少年时期风险认知与观点采择的发展变化及个体差异。
Dev Psychopathol. 2008 Fall;20(4):1213-29. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000588.
9
A formal analysis of inconsistent decisions in intertemporal choice through subjective time perception.通过主观时间感知对跨期选择中不一致决策的形式分析。
Heliyon. 2023 Oct 27;9(11):e21077. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21077. eCollection 2023 Nov.
10
A neuropsychological approach to understanding risk-taking for potential gains and losses.一种从神经心理学角度理解对潜在收益和损失的冒险行为的方法。
Front Neurosci. 2012 Feb 7;6:15. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00015. eCollection 2012.

引用本文的文献

1
Side Effects in Time Discounting Procedures: Fixed Alternatives Become the Reference Point.时间折扣程序中的副作用:固定选项成为参考点。
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 21;11(10):e0165245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165245. eCollection 2016.
2
Standing in Your Peer's Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity.设身处地为同伴着想会损害你的成就:风险态度和冲动性方面的自我与他人差异。
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 19;7:197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00197. eCollection 2016.
3
Psychological perspectives on expertise.关于专业技能的心理学观点。

本文引用的文献

1
Base rates: both neglected and intuitive.基础比率:既被忽视又直观。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Mar;40(2):544-54. doi: 10.1037/a0034887. Epub 2013 Nov 11.
2
Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.认知去偏倚 1:偏倚的起源和去偏倚理论。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii58-ii64. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712. Epub 2013 Jul 23.
3
Delay discounting: I'm a k, you're a k.延迟折扣:我是 k,你是 k。
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 10;6:258. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00258. eCollection 2015.
4
Introducing conjoint analysis method into delayed lotteries studies: its validity and time stability are higher than in adjusting.将联合分析方法引入延迟抽奖研究:其有效性和时间稳定性高于调整法。
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 28;6:23. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00023. eCollection 2015.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2011 Nov;96(3):427-39. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2011.96-423.
4
Affective and cognitive factors influencing sensitivity to probabilistic information.影响概率信息敏感性的情感和认知因素。
Risk Anal. 2011 Nov;31(11):1832-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01644.x. Epub 2011 Jun 20.
5
Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008.美国成年人肥胖率的流行趋势及变化,1999-2008 年。
JAMA. 2010 Jan 20;303(3):235-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.2014. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
6
Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making.判断与决策中的自动与受控成分。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(5):797-813. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.797.
7
The combined effects of delay and probability in discounting.折扣中延迟和概率的综合影响。
Behav Processes. 2006 Sep;73(2):149-55. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.05.001. Epub 2006 May 12.
8
Gambling participation in the U.S.--results from a national survey.美国的赌博参与情况——一项全国性调查的结果。
J Gambl Stud. 2002 Winter;18(4):313-37. doi: 10.1023/a:1021019915591.
9
Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease.选定的主要风险因素以及全球和区域疾病负担。
Lancet. 2002 Nov 2;360(9343):1347-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11403-6.
10
Area under the curve as a measure of discounting.曲线下面积作为贴现的一种度量。
J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):235-43. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235.