从风险决策中的多次博弈到单次博弈:量变还是质变?
From Multiple-play to Single-play in Risky Decision Making: Quantitative Change or Qualitative Change?
查看参考文献55篇
文摘
|
诺贝尔经济学奖获得者Samuelson于1963年发现人们在单次和多次博弈条件下决策行为不一致。文章综述了两种博弈条件下人们决策行为的差异并质疑了这种差异的传统理论解释机制。描述或预测决策行为的风险决策理论其实只采用了一种评价法则--期望法则,始终没有跳出“最大化”的窠臼。基于实验证据,我们推测,多次博弈时人们遵守了期望法则,而单次博弈时人们所遵循的是非补偿性法则。从多次博弈到单次博弈,不单单是一种博弈次数上的变化(量变),而是代表了从期望法则(补偿性法则)到非补偿性法则两种策略之间的转变(质变)。最后,文章介绍了单次、多次博弈问题在医疗、应急管理以及投资领域的体现,并呼吁更多的研究者关注单次、多次博弈问题。 |
其他语种文摘
|
In risky decision making, the subtle interplay between single-play and multiple-play is well illustrated by the literature that has followed an early paper by Paul Samuelson(1963).The article summarized the difference between responses for single-play and multiple-play and questioned traditional theoretical explanations.Most risky decision-making theories are based on the same assumption: a rational decision maker behaves as if he or she were attempting to maximize some kind of expectation.However, based on a combination of research evidence, maybe we could infer that the multiple-play and single-play gambles were in fact so utterly different that the short run one was perhaps not based on the expectation rule. From multiple-play to single-play, it is likely to represent a strategy shift from expectation rule to non-compensatory rule(qualitative change)rather than pure change on the number of gamble times (quantitative change).The status and perspectives on the applied researches of multiple-play were introduced and the research prospect was put forward as well. |
来源
|
心理科学进展
,2011,19(10):1417-1425 【核心库】
|
关键词
|
多次博弈
;
单次博弈
;
风险决策
;
期望法则
|
地址
|
1.
中国科学院心理研究所, 中国科学院行为科学重点实验室, 北京, 100101
2.
中国民航大学安全科学与工程学院, 天津, 300300
|
语种
|
中文 |
文献类型
|
研究性论文 |
ISSN
|
1671-3710 |
学科
|
社会科学总论 |
基金
|
国家973计划
;
国家自然科学基金面上项目
;
中国科学院知识创新工程重要方向项目
;
北京市重点学科建设项目
|
文献收藏号
|
CSCD:4351504
|
参考文献 共
55
共3页
|
1.
李纾. 艾勒悖论(Allais Paradox)另释.
心理学报,2001,33(2):176-181
|
被引
10
次
|
|
|
|
2.
李纾. 无限理性还是有限理性?——齐当别抉择模型在经济行为中的应用.
管理评论,2009,21(5):103-114
|
被引
8
次
|
|
|
|
3.
苏寅.
从一次到多次, 风险决策的眼动研究. 第十三届全国心理学学术大会分组报告论文,2010
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
4.
孙红月. 最优应急预案: 制定和实施的本质差异.
第十二届全国心理学学术大会分组报告论文,2009
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
5.
孙彦. 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统.
心理科学进展,2007,15(5):721-845
|
被引
61
次
|
|
|
|
6.
孙悦. 澳门人的风险知觉与赌博行为.
心理学报,2005,37:260-267
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
7.
汪祚军. 对整合模型和占优启发式模型的检验: 基于信息加工过程的眼动研究证据.
心理学报,2012
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
8.
汪祚军. 整合模型还是占优启发式模型? 从齐当别模型视角进行的检验.
心理学报,2010,42(8):821-833
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
9.
Aloysius J A. Decision making in the short and long run: Repeated gambles and rationality.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,2007,60(1):61-69
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
10.
Arrow K J. Risk perception in psychology and economics.
Economic Inquiry,1982,20(1):1-9
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
11.
Asch D A. Why some health policies don't make sense at the bedside.
Annals of Internal Medicine,1995,122:846-850
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
12.
Barron G. Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2003,16:215-233
|
被引
8
次
|
|
|
|
13.
Bellemare C. Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility.
Economics Letters,2005,87(3):319-324
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
14.
Benartzi S. Risk aversion or myopia?Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments.
Management Science,1999,45:364-381
|
被引
5
次
|
|
|
|
15.
Cohen B J. Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making.
Medical Decision Making,1996,16:1-6
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
16.
Colbert G. The use of expected value in pricing judgments.
Journal of Risk Research,2009,12:199-208
|
被引
3
次
|
|
|
|
17.
Dekay M L. Are medical outcomes fungible?A survey of voters, medical administrators, and Physicians.
Medical Decision Making(online),2010
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
18.
Dekay M L. Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles.
Judgment and Decision Making,2006,1(2):134-145
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
19.
Dekay M L. When things don't add up.
Psychological Science,2005,16:667-672
|
被引
3
次
|
|
|
|
20.
Dekay M L. Further explorations of medical decisions for individuals and for groups.
Medical Decision Making,2000,20:39-44
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|