帮助 关于我们

返回检索结果

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
Integrative Model or the Priority Heuristic? A Test from the Point of View of the Equate-to-Differentiate Model

查看参考文献50篇

汪祚军 1   欧创巍 2   李纾 1 *  
文摘 实验从齐当别模型的视角,通过对决策过程反应时的考察分别对以累积预期理论(cumulative prospect theory)为代表的整合模型和启发式模型家族的重要成员--占优启发式模型(priority heuristic)--进行检验.结果表明,决策过程反应时并未随着占优启发式模型所假定的决策步骤的增加而变慢;也未随着选项之间整体值差值的变大而变快;模糊决策过程的反应时反而快于风险决策过程的反应时.无论是以累积预期理论为代表的整合模型还是占优启发式模型均不能满意地描述和解释人们的实际决策过程,而齐当别模型则能解释大部分实验结果.文章建议多角度,多指标探讨人们的决策过程,检验,修改,完善,以及建立新的启发式模型或决策过程模型(process model),以增进对人们如何进行风险决策的理解
其他语种文摘 Theories intended to describe decision making under risk and uncertainty can be classified as two families according to their theoretical basis:the integrative model and heuristic model. The integrative model postulates that the decision maker is both willing and able to combine information from different dimensions through two fundamental processes:weighting and summing. The heuristic model assumes that people do not integrate these kinds of information but rely on a repertoire of simple decision strategies--called heuristics--to make inferences, choices, estimations, and other decisions. A total of four experiments were conducted to compare these two sets of competing models from the view of the equate-to-differentiate model(Li,1994,2004a,2004b) by using a response time approach. Experiment 1 re-examined the priority heuristic by using the decision questions employed by Brandstatter, Gigerenzer and Hertwig(2006), but failed to duplicate their results. The priority heuristic predicted that the increase of reasons(steps) required would be associated with the increase of time for making a choice. Experiment 2 tested the priority heuristic by manipulating the number of reasons(steps) assumed by the priority heuristic and the difference between two options on the best-outcome/worst-outcome dimension assumed by the equate-to-differentiate model. It was revealed that the decision time did not increase with the increasing number of reasons(steps) assumed by the priority heuristic but decreased with the increased difference between two options on the best-outcome/worst-outcome dimension. These results obtained in Experiments 1 and 2 were not friendly to the priority heuristic model. Experiments 3 and 4 were designed to test the integrative model. Experiment 3 tested the integrative model by comparing the decision time under risk and under ambiguity. Interestingly, the average decision time under risk was much longer than that under ambiguity. This was contrary to the implications of the integrative model because integrating an ambiguous probability with a given outcome will take longer time than integrating an exact probability with a given outcome to give an overall value or utility. Experiment 4 tested the integrative model by manipulating the difference between CPT(Cumulative Prospect Theory) values and the difference between two options on the best-outcome/worst-outcome dimension. The results showed that the decision time did not decrease with the increased difference between the CPT values but decreased with the increased difference between two options on the best-outcome/worst-outcome dimension, which were not consistent with integrative model but consistent with the equate-to-differentiate model. In sum, neither integrative model nor priority heuristic could help account for the data on choice process that we observed. Future work may focus on testing these two sets of models by employing methods which can provide a much richer description of the decision process than the response time approach employed in the present paper
来源 心理学报 ,2010,42(8):821-833 【核心库】
关键词 整合模型 ; 启发式模型 ; 齐当别模型 ; 决策过程 ; 反应时
地址

1. 中国科学院心理研究所, 北京, 100101  

2. 中山大学逻辑与认知研究所, 广州, 510275

语种 中文
ISSN 0439-755X
学科 社会科学总论
基金 国家自然科学基金项目 ;  北京市重点学科建设等项目资助 ;  中国科学院知识创新工程重要方向项目
文献收藏号 CSCD:4031277

参考文献 共 50 共3页

1.  Allais M. Le comportement de I'homme rationanel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axioms de I'ecole Americaine. Econometrica,1953,21:503-546 CSCD被引 37 次    
2.  Bell D.E. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research,1982,30:961-981 CSCD被引 113 次    
3.  Bell D.E. Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research,1985,33:1-27 CSCD被引 36 次    
4.  Bergert F.B. A response time approach to comparing generalized rational and Take-the-Best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,2007,33:107-129 CSCD被引 4 次    
5.  Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica,1954,22:23-36 CSCD被引 27 次    
6.  毕研玲. 有限理性的“占优启发式”和“齐当别”决策模型的作为——当Allais悖论杠杆撬动了期望效用理论. 心理科学进展,2007,15:682-688 CSCD被引 7 次    
7.  Birnbaum M.H. Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology,2004,48:87-106 CSCD被引 1 次    
8.  Birnbaum M.H. Evidence against prospect theories in gambles with positive, negative, and mixed consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology,2006,27:737-761 CSCD被引 1 次    
9.  Birnbaum M.H. New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review,2008,115:463-501 CSCD被引 3 次    
10.  Birnbaum M. Tests of theories of decision making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1997,71:161-194 CSCD被引 1 次    
11.  Birnbaum M. Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2008,105:122-133 CSCD被引 1 次    
12.  Brandstatter E. The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review,2006,113:409-432 CSCD被引 22 次    
13.  Broder A. Take The Best versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inference from memory and effects of representation formal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,2003,132:277-293 CSCD被引 3 次    
14.  Dehaene S. Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition,1992,44:1-42 CSCD被引 26 次    
15.  Driver J. Moral heuristics and consequentialism. Moral psychology: Vol2.The cognitive science of morality:intuition and diversity,2008:31-40 CSCD被引 1 次    
16.  Einhorn H.J. Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review,1985,92:433-461 CSCD被引 4 次    
17.  Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1961,75:643-669 CSCD被引 76 次    
18.  Gigerenzer G. Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox,2001 CSCD被引 6 次    
19.  Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. Simple heuristics that make us smart,1999:3-34 CSCD被引 2 次    
20.  Glockner A. Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,2008,34:1055-1075 CSCD被引 4 次    
引证文献 9 篇

1 孙彦 风险条件下的跨期选择 心理科学进展,2011,19(1):28-34
CSCD被引 14 次

2 孙红月 从风险决策中的多次博弈到单次博弈：量变还是质变? 心理科学进展,2011,19(10):1417-1425
CSCD被引 2 次

显示所有9篇文献

论文科学数据集
PlumX Metrics
相关文献

 作者相关
 关键词相关
 参考文献相关

iAuthor 链接
李纾 0000-0003-4402-1674
版权所有 ©2008 中国科学院文献情报中心 制作维护：中国科学院文献情报中心
地址：北京中关村北四环西路33号 邮政编码：100190 联系电话：(010)82627496 E-mail:cscd@mail.las.ac.cn 京ICP备05002861号-4 | 京公网安备11010802043238号