风险“四折”模式的机制检验: 来自不同模糊程度和时空决策的证据
文献类型：学位论文
| 作者 | 杨舒雯
|
| 答辩日期 | 2023-06 |
| 文献子类 | 博士 |
| 授予单位 | 中国科学院大学 |
| 授予地点 | 中国科学院心理研究所 |
| 其他责任者 | 李纾 |
| 关键词 | 风险决策 “四折”偏好模式 齐当别理论 预期理论 跨期和空间决策 |
| 学位名称 | 理学博士 |
| 学位专业 | 应用心理学 |
| 其他题名 | The mechanism of "fourfold pattern" in risky choice: Evidence from different ambiguity formats and intertemporal and spatial choices |
| 中文摘要 | Prospect theory (PT) and cumulative prospect theory (CPT) have revealed a sophisticated preference pattern among individuals that goes beyond the "twofold" pattern of risk-taking for gains and risk aversion for losses, as exemplified by buying lotteries and buying insurances. Instead, individuals exhibit a "fourfold pattern" preference that encompasses risk-taking and risk averse, respectively, of gains and losses for small probability; risk averse and risk-taking, respectively, of gains and losses for large probability, as termed by KT's "fourfold pattern" preference. CPT offers an account for this preference pattern by positing an overweighting of small probabilities in the weighting function, yet this proposition is directly challenged and reshaped by Markowitz's "fourfold pattern" preference. The two distinct versions of the "fourfold pattern" preferences have prompted a thorough reevaluation of the underlying decision-making mechanisms. Furthermore, the incapacity of CPT to explain both versions of "fourfold pattern" has motivated researchers to contemplate the possibility of abandoning alternative-based assumption (weighting and adding process), and instead embracing a dimension-based (non-compensatory) decision model for mechanism interpretation. As one of the representative models of non-compensatory decision-making, equate-to-differentiate (ETD) model can theoretically explain the two distinct versions of the "fourfold pattern" preferences based solely on the perceived difference between the two options on the "best-possible-outcome" and "worst-possible-outcome". Therefore, a key scientific question in this doctoral dissertation is whether the "fourfold pattern" preferences in risky choice can be explained by ETD model. Is it better to explain them using a dimension-based/non-compensatory decision model or an alternative-based/compensatory decision model? Study 1 aims to investigate whether the two distinct versions of the "fourfold pattern" preferences in risky choice can be explained by ETD model. Two sub一studies were designed to examine whether ETD model can account the two versions of the "fourfold pattern" preferences identified by KT (Sub-study 1.1) and Markowitz (Sub-study 1.2), respectively. Visual analog scales were utilized to measure the mediators, and mediation analyses were conducted. The findings indicate that, even if individuals' preference patterns did not entirely demonstrate the full "fourfold pattern" predicted by CPT, the observed preference patterns could be explained by ETD model, providing preliminary behavioral evidence for ETD model's explanation of the "fourfold pattern" preferences in risky choice. Study 2 builds on the foundation laid by the Study 1 and investigates whether people's preference patterns under different ambiguous formats are consistent with those in risky choice. The theoretical rationale for this study is to test ETD model under more stringent condition (falsifiable) but also more lenient conditions for a model of "weighting and adding". Specifically, it is not a requirement that 1) the functions of Markowitz or KT in current format possess the capacity to accurately convert ambiguous probabilities or outcomes into precise "weighting" or "value", and 2) the prospects of the ambiguous options calculated via "weighting and adding" conform to the relationship corresponding to the "fourfold pattern" preference. However, ETD model suggests that individuals' preference patterns under ambiguous conditions should exhibit a consistent pattern as in risky choice as long as the differences between the two options on the "best-possible-outcome" dimension and the "worst-possible-outcome" dimension proportionally remain the same as "fourfold pattern" under risky conditions. The study comprises three experimental conditions: ambiguous probabilities (Sub-study 2.1.1), ambiguous outcomes (Sub-study 2.1.2), and full ambiguity for both probabilities and outcomes (Sub-study 2.2). In each condition, the corresponding information is presented in both verbal and numerical formats to verify whether the "fourfold pattern" preferences proposed by KT and Markowitz can be replicated. The results demonstrate that both KT's and Markowitz's "fourfold pattern" preference models can be detected or observed in most cases, providing supportive evidence for the ETD model's ability to explain the "fourfold pattern" preferences in decision-making under fuzziness. The main purpose of Study 3 is to provide intuitive eye-movement process evidence for the explanatory mechanism of the "fourfold pattern" preferences. To this end, Study 3 constructs 16 sets of parameters for the "fourfold pattern" under both risky and ambiguous probability conditions in a pre-experiment, and uses a "probability-proportion" paradigm in the formal experiment, with a calculation rule-based proportion task of "XX% of XX Yuan" as the baseline. By comparing the eye-movement characteristics between risky and ambiguous choices, as well as between probability and proportion tasks, the results reveal that the information search process of ambiguous choices is more likely being dimension-based than risky choices; the information search process of probability tasks is more likely being dimension-based than proportion tasks, and the eye-tracking indicators of the ETD model can fit the choice results when people make free choices. This study provides direct and strong process evidence for the ETD model's explanation of the "fourfold pattern" preference model. Study 4 attempts to apply the ETD model to intertemporal and spatial choices and explore whether similar intertemporal and spatial versions of the "fourfold pattern" preferences could be generated. The results indicated that, in both intertemporal and spatial choices, participants' preference patterns exhibited intertemporal and spatial versions of the KT's "fourfold pattern" preference, which is similar to the KT's "fourfold" pattern under risk. This doctoral dissertation examines mechanism underlying both two versions of "fourfold pattern" preferences in risky choices and provides a coherent explanation of the "fourfold pattern" preferences using ETD model. Furthermore, following the "intra-dimensional comparison" approach, we generated similar "fourfold pattern" preference in intertemporal and spatial choices, akin to the KT's "fourfold pattern" preference under risk. It therefore not only brings new and unprecedented challenges to the "alternative-based and compensatory" intertemporal/spatial choice model but also made exploratory attempts to deepen the understanding of decision-making mechanisms in risky, intertemporal and spatial choices and to explain people's real economic behavior. |
| 英文摘要 | 决策理论的集大成者预期理论和累积预期理论发现，人们不仅仅有买彩票 (小概率获益冒险)和买保险(小概率损失保守)的“两折”行为。人们的行为模式实际上可以划分为“四折”:小概率获益情况下冒险，小概率损失情况下保守，大概率获益情况下保守，以及大概率损失情况下冒险，我们称之为KT“四折”偏好模式。累积预期理论解释“四折”偏好模式需要依赖权重函数的高估小概率特征，但是此种函数特征却受到马科维兹“四折”偏好模式的直接挑战和质疑。 两种“四折”偏好模式的出现迫使我们重新审视其决策机制，累积预期理论对于选择机制的解释无能则启示我们:我们能否放弃基于选项(加权求和)的前提假设，从基于维度的非补偿性的决策模型视角进行机制解释? 齐当别理论作为非补偿性模型代表性模型之一，仅根据两选项在“最好结果维度”和“最坏结果维度”上的差别判断，便可从理论上清晰地解释风险决策中的两种“四折”偏好模式。因此本博士论文关键科学问题即:风险决策中的“四折”偏好模式能否为齐当别理论所解释?是基于维度的非补偿性的决策模型还是基于选项的补偿性的决策模型对其解释得更好? 研究一从风险决策出发，探究风险决策中的两种“四折”偏好模式能否被齐当别理论所解释。研究一设计了两个子研究，借助直观模拟天平任务，通过中介分析方式，分别检验了齐当别理论能否解释KT“四折”偏好模式(子研究1.1)以及马科维兹的“四折”偏好模式(子研究1.2)。结果表明，在风险决策中，即使人们的偏好模式并未完全表现出预期理论所预测的完整“四折”偏好模式，但是观察到的行为模式可以被齐当别理论所解释，这为齐当别理论解释“四折”偏好模式提供了初步行为证据。 在研究一的基础上，研究二探究了在不同模糊条件下，人们的选择模式是否还与风险决策保持一致。其论证的逻辑是提供一个对齐当别严苛(可证伪)而对“加权求和”理论宽松的条件。对“加权求和”理论宽松意味着，我们并不要求1)马科维兹或者卡尼曼等人的“权重”/“价值”函数函数现在就能够将模糊的概率/结果转化成精确的“权重”或“价值”，2)“加权求和”计算后的模糊选项大小值符合“四折”偏好模式所对应的关系;而齐当别理论则推测，只要两选项的可能结果符合“四折”模式的大小关系，人们在模糊条件下的选择行为应该也会出现与风险决策相一致的偏好模式。研究二共设计了模糊概率(子研究2.1.1)、模糊结果(子研究2.1.2)和概率一结果全模糊(子研究2.2三种条件，每种条件下我们分别用文字形式和概率形式进行对应内容的替代，以检验KT`‘四折”偏好模式以及马科维兹的“四折”偏好模式是否会复现。结果表明，卡尼曼等人和马科维兹的两种“四折”偏好模式能在多数实验条件中被侦测或观察到，这为齐当别理论解释“四折”偏好模式提供了支持性证据。 研究三的主要目的是为“四折”偏好模式的解释机制提供直观的眼动过程证据。研究三通过预实验为风险条件和模糊概率条件的“四折”构造了16组参数，正式实验采用“概率一比例”范式，设计了基于计算规则的“XX元的XX%比例”的比例任务作为基线。通过比较风险决策和模糊决策的眼动特征以及概率任务和比例任务的眼动特征，结果发现，模糊决策比风险决策的信息搜索过程更加基于维度;概率任务比比例任务的信息搜索过程更加基于维度，齐当别理论的眼动指标可以预测人们自由决策中的选择结果。此研究为齐当别理论解释“四折”偏好 模式提供了直接且强有力的过程证据。 研究四尝试将齐当别理论应用至跨期和空间决策领域，探索在跨期和空间决策中能否生成类似的跨期版“四折”偏好模式和空间版“四折”偏好模式。研究四结果表明，在跨期决策和空间决策中，人们的行为模式表现出了类似KT风险“四折”模式的跨期和空间版KT“四折”偏好模式。 综上，本博士论文考察了风险决策中两种“四折”偏好模式的解释机制，尝试用齐当别理论对“四折”偏好模式给出统一的解释。并且，依据“维度比较”的思路，我们在跨期与空间决策中复制出类似于KT风险“四折”的跨期与空间版KT“四折”偏好模式，这不仅给“基于选项补偿性”的跨期/空间决策模型带来新的、前所未有的挑战，也为深入理解三种领域的决策机制和解释人们真实经济行为做出了探索性尝试。 |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 源URL | [http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/46216]  |
| 专题 | 心理研究所_社会与工程心理学研究室 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 杨舒雯. 风险“四折”模式的机制检验: 来自不同模糊程度和时空决策的证据[D]. 中国科学院心理研究所. 中国科学院大学. 2023. |
入库方式： OAI收割
来源：心理研究所
浏览0
下载0
收藏0
其他版本
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。