Markiewicz Łukasz, Kubińska Elżbieta
Center of Economic Psychology and Decision Sciences, Economic Psychology, Kozminski University Warsaw, Poland.
Department of Financial Markets, Cracow University of Economics Kraków, Poland.
Front Psychol. 2015 Nov 18;6:1727. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01727. eCollection 2015.
This paper aims to provide insight into information processing differences between hot and cold risk taking decision tasks within a single domain. Decision theory defines risky situations using at least three parameters: outcome one (often a gain) with its probability and outcome two (often a loss) with a complementary probability. Although a rational agent should consider all of the parameters, s/he could potentially narrow their focus to only some of them, particularly when explicit Type 2 processes do not have the resources to override implicit Type 1 processes. Here we investigate differences in risky situation parameters' influence on hot and cold decisions. Although previous studies show lower information use in hot than in cold processes, they do not provide decision weight changes and therefore do not explain whether this difference results from worse concentration on each parameter of a risky situation (probability, gain amount, and loss amount) or from ignoring some parameters.
Two studies were conducted, with participants performing the Columbia Card Task (CCT) in either its Cold or Hot version. In the first study, participants also performed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to monitor their ability to override Type 1 processing cues (implicit processes) with Type 2 explicit processes. Because hypothesis testing required comparison of the relative importance of risky situation decision weights (gain, loss, probability), we developed a novel way of measuring information use in the CCT by employing a conjoint analysis methodology.
Across the two studies, results indicated that in the CCT Cold condition decision makers concentrate on each information type (gain, loss, probability), but in the CCT Hot condition they concentrate mostly on a single parameter: probability of gain/loss. We also show that an individual's CRT score correlates with information use propensity in cold but not hot tasks. Thus, the affective dimension of hot tasks inhibits correct information processing, probably because it is difficult to engage Type 2 processes in such circumstances. Individuals' Type 2 processing abilities (measured by the CRT) assist greater use of information in cold tasks but do not help in hot tasks.
本文旨在深入探讨单一领域内热风险决策任务和冷风险决策任务之间的信息处理差异。决策理论使用至少三个参数来定义风险情境：结果一（通常为收益）及其概率，以及结果二（通常为损失）及其互补概率。尽管理性主体应考虑所有参数，但他们可能会将注意力仅集中于其中一些参数，尤其是当显性的2型加工过程没有足够资源来覆盖隐性的1型加工过程时。在此，我们研究风险情境参数对热决策和冷决策影响的差异。尽管先前的研究表明热加工过程中信息使用比冷加工过程少，但这些研究并未给出决策权重的变化情况，因此无法解释这种差异是源于对风险情境的每个参数（概率、收益量和损失量）关注程度较低，还是源于忽略了某些参数。
进行了两项研究，参与者分别执行哥伦比亚卡片任务（CCT）的冷版本或热版本。在第一项研究中，参与者还进行了认知反思测试（CRT），以监测他们用2型显性加工过程覆盖1型加工线索（隐性加工过程）的能力。由于假设检验需要比较风险情境决策权重（收益、损失、概率）的相对重要性，我们采用联合分析方法开发了一种测量CCT中信息使用的新方法。
在两项研究中，结果表明，在CCT冷条件下，决策者会关注每种信息类型（收益、损失、概率），但在CCT热条件下，他们主要关注单个参数：收益/损失的概率。我们还表明，个体的CRT分数与冷任务中的信息使用倾向相关，但与热任务无关。因此，热任务的情感维度会抑制正确的信息处理，这可能是因为在这种情况下难以启动2型加工过程。个体的2型加工能力（通过CRT测量）有助于在冷任务中更多地使用信息，但对热任务没有帮助。
