• 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

通适可评价理论。

General Evaluability Theory.

机构信息

Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami, FL.

出版信息

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;5(4):343-55. doi: 10.1177/1745691610374586.

DOI:10.1177/1745691610374586
PMID:26162182
Abstract

A central question in psychology and economics is the determination of whether individuals react differently to different values of a cared-about attribute (e.g., different income levels, different gas prices, and different ambient temperatures). Building on and significantly extending our earlier work on preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations, we propose a general evaluability theory (GET) that specifies when people are value sensitive and when people mispredict their own or others' value sensitivity. The GET can explain and unify many seemingly unrelated findings, ranging from duration neglect to affective forecasting errors and can generate many new research directions on topics ranging from temporal discounting to subjective well-being.

摘要

心理学和经济学中的一个核心问题是,个体对于所关心的属性(例如,不同的收入水平、不同的油价和不同的环境温度)的不同取值会做出不同反应,这一问题该如何确定。在我们之前关于联合评估和单独评估之间偏好反转的研究基础上,我们提出了一个通用评价性理论(GET),用于确定人们何时具有价值敏感性,以及何时会错误预测自己或他人的价值敏感性。GET 可以解释和统一许多看似不相关的发现,从时间忽视到情感预测错误,并且可以为从时间折扣到主观幸福感等主题的许多新研究方向提供理论依据。

相似文献

1
General Evaluability Theory.通适可评价理论。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;5(4):343-55. doi: 10.1177/1745691610374586.
2
Options as information: rational reversals of evaluation and preference.作为信息的选项:评价与偏好的合理反转
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Jun;143(3):1127-43. doi: 10.1037/a0035128. Epub 2013 Dec 23.
3
Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations With Multiple Alternatives and Context Effects.具有多个选项和情境效应的联合评估与单独评估之间的偏好反转
Psychol Rep. 2017 Dec;120(6):1117-1136. doi: 10.1177/0033294117718147. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
4
A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena.偏好反转现象的动态、随机计算模型。
Psychol Rev. 2005 Oct;112(4):841-61. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.841.
5
Distinction bias: misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation.差异偏差:联合评估导致的错误预测和错误选择。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 May;86(5):680-95. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680.
6
"Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.“28%是好是坏?”医疗保健决策中的可评估性与偏好逆转。
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):142-8. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04263154.
7
Interattribute evaluation theory.属性间评估理论。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Oct;148(10):1733-1746. doi: 10.1037/xge0000552. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
8
The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?慈善捐赠中的可评估性偏差:节省管理成本还是拯救生命?
Judgm Decis Mak. 2014 Jul 1;9(4):303-316.
9
Family pediatrics: report of the Task Force on the Family.家庭儿科学:家庭问题特别工作组报告
Pediatrics. 2003 Jun;111(6 Pt 2):1541-71.
10
Development and application of an aerosol screening model for size-resolved urban aerosols.用于粒径分辨的城市气溶胶的气溶胶筛选模型的开发与应用。
Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2014 Jun(179):3-79.

引用本文的文献

1
Does certification lead to satisfaction? Agro-product geographical indications and subjective well-being of farmers.认证会带来满意度吗?农产品地理标志与农民的主观幸福感。
BMC Psychol. 2025 May 20;13(1):532. doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-02844-4.
2
Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision-making.计数会改变重要性吗?量化固定偏见会影响决策。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Nov 12;121(46):e2400215121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2400215121. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
3
Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.
增强患者对实验室检验结果的理解:呈现格式及其对感知、决策、行动和记忆影响的系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 12;26:e53993. doi: 10.2196/53993.
4
"R" you getting this? Factors contributing to the public's understanding, evaluation, and use of basic reproduction numbers for infectious diseases.你收到了吗?影响公众对传染病基本繁殖数的理解、评估和使用的因素。
BMC Public Health. 2024 May 1;24(1):1209. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18669-6.
5
Incomparability and Incommensurability in Choice: No Common Currency of Value?选择中的不可比性和不可通约性:没有共同的价值货币?
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024 Nov;19(6):1011-1030. doi: 10.1177/17456916231192828. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
6
The public's preferred level of involvement in local policy-making.公众对参与地方决策的偏好程度。
Sci Rep. 2023 May 2;13(1):7146. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34282-w.
7
Public attitudes value interpretability but prioritize accuracy in Artificial Intelligence.公众态度重视可解释性,但在人工智能中更重视准确性。
Nat Commun. 2022 Oct 3;13(1):5821. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33417-3.
8
Large numbers cause magnitude neglect: The case of government expenditures.大量数据导致忽视量级:以政府支出为例。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Jul 12;119(28):e2203037119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2203037119. Epub 2022 Jul 7.
9
Surprisingness and Occupational Engagement Influence Affective Forecasting in Career-Relevant Contexts.意外性和职业投入对与职业相关情境下的情感预测产生影响。
Front Psychol. 2022 Jul 1;13:838765. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.838765. eCollection 2022.
10
Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments.是一个含化学物质较少的香烟品牌更安全吗?来自两个美国全国性实验的公众认知。
J Behav Med. 2022 Oct;45(5):812-817. doi: 10.1007/s10865-022-00329-y. Epub 2022 Jun 10.