删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

行为决策中诱饵效应的认知加工机制

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

李嘉惠, 刘清, 蒋多()
深圳大学心理学院, 深圳 518060
收稿日期:2019-11-01出版日期:2020-10-15发布日期:2020-08-24
通讯作者:蒋多E-mail:duo12322@szu.edu.cn

基金资助:* 国家自然科学金项目(71901148);广东省自然科学基金项目(2018A030310432)

The cognitive mechanisms of decoy effect in decision making

LI Jiahui, LIU Qing, JIANG Duo()
College of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
Received:2019-11-01Online:2020-10-15Published:2020-08-24
Contact:JIANG Duo E-mail:duo12322@szu.edu.cn






摘要/Abstract


摘要: 在原选项集中加入一个诱饵选项能够使人们的选择发生改变, 这就是诱饵效应。研究者发现可以通过设置相似诱饵、妥协诱饵、吸引诱饵以及幽灵诱饵等达到诱导决策者选择目标选项的目的。当前, 很多研究探索了诱饵效应的认知加工机制, 有研究者基于启发式加工和分析式加工的视角开展研究, 也有研究者从维度加工和选项加工的视角对此进行探索。诱饵效应的认知加工过程受到年龄、后悔情绪、决策形式以及时间压力等因素的影响。未来的研究需要构建适用于各类诱饵效应的统一的认知加工机制模型, 探索知觉在诱饵效应形成过程中的基础性作用, 探索个体的决策风格对不同类型诱饵效应的影响, 并通过合理利用诱饵效应助推社会发展。



图1相似诱饵示意图
图1相似诱饵示意图



图2妥协诱饵设置策略示意图
图2妥协诱饵设置策略示意图



图3吸引诱饵设置策略示意图
图3吸引诱饵设置策略示意图



图4幽灵诱饵设置策略示意图
图4幽灵诱饵设置策略示意图







[1] 蒋多. (2015). 跨期决策策略研究. 博士学位论文. 浙江大学.
[2] 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. (2007). 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, 15(5), 721-726.
[3] Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.
[4] Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961-981.
doi: 10.1287/opre.30.5.961URL
[5] Cataldo, A. M., & Cohen, A. L. (2018). Reversing the similarity effect: The effect of presentation format. Cognition, 175, 141-156.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.003URLpmid: 29525692
[6] Cataldo, A. M., & Cohen, A. L. (2019). The comparison process as an account of variation in the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(3), 934-942.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1531-9URLpmid: 30264240
[7] Choplin, J. M., & Hummel, J. E. (2005). Comparison- induced decoy effects. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 332-343.
doi: 10.3758/bf03195321URLpmid: 16028587
[8] Chung, H. K., Sj?str?m, T., Lee, H. J., Lu, Y. T., Tsuo, F. Y., Chen, T. S., ... Huang, C. Y. (2017). Why do irrelevant alternatives matter? An fMRI-TMS study of context- dependent preferences. The Journal of Neuroscience, 37(48), 11647-11661.
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2307-16.2017URLpmid: 29109242
[9] Connolly, T., Reb, J., & Kausel, E. E. (2013). Regret salience and accountability in the decoy effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 136-149.
[10] Ert, E., & Lejarraga, T. (2018). The effect of experience on context-dependent decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(4), 535-546.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.v31.4URL
[11] Evans, N. J., Holmes, W. R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2019). Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(3), 901-933.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1557-zURLpmid: 30737646
[12] Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(3), 575-589.
doi: 10.1016/S0176-2680(97)00020-7URL
[13] Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 68-76.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0006URL
[14] Hu, J. P., & Yu, R. J. (2014). The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 271.
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00271URLpmid: 25147516
[15] Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
doi: 10.1086/jcr.1982.9.issue-1URL
[16] Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research. 10(1), 31-44.
doi: 10.1086/jcr.1983.10.issue-1URL
[17] Kim, M. Y., & Park, B. I. (2017). The impact of country of origin on context effects in choice. International Marketing Review, 34(6), 706-734.
doi: 10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0074URL
[18] Lea, A. M., & Ryan, M. J. (2015). Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs. Science, 349(6251), 964-966.
doi: 10.1126/science.aab2012URLpmid: 26315434
[19] Liew, S. X., Howe, P. D. L., & Little, D. R. (2016). The appropriacy of averaging in the study of context effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1639-1646.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1032-7URLpmid: 27025500
[20] Locatello, L., Poli, F., & Rasotto, M. B. (2015). Context- dependent evaluation of prospective mates in a fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 69(7), 1119-1126.
doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-1924-yURLpmid: 26097281
[21] Mao, W. (2016). When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 66-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.007URL
[22] Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 331-349.
doi: 10.1177/002224379303000305URL
[23] Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2014). In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions. Cognition, 132(1), 44-56.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.006URL
[24] Parrish, A. E., Afrifa, E., & Beran, M. J. (2018). Exploring decoy effects on computerized task preferences in Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 235-253.
[25] Parrish, A. E., Evans, T. A., & Beran, M. J. (2015). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) exhibit the decoy effect in a perceptual discrimination task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(5), 1715-1725.
[26] Pettibone, J. C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 513-521.
[27] Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300-328.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2880URLpmid: 10706818
[28] Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 103-122.
doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1301_9URL
[29] Reb, J., Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2018). Decoy effect, anticipated regret, and preferences for work-family benefits. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 441-464.
doi: 10.1111/joop.2018.91.issue-3URL
[30] Ronayne, D., & Brown, G. D. A. (2017). Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, compromise and similarity effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 81, 11-27.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2017.08.005URL
[31] Scarpi, D. (2011). The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats. Animal Cognition, 14(1), 127-136.
doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0350-9URL
[32] Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., & Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence. Social Cognition, 17(2), 118-139.
doi: 10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.118URL
[33] Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
doi: 10.1086/jcr.1989.16.issue-2URL
[34] Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
doi: 10.1177/002224379202900301URL
[35] Spektor, M. S., Kellen, D., & Hotaling, J. M. (2018). When the good looks bad: An experimental exploration of the repulsion effect. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1309-1320.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618779041URLpmid: 29792774
[36] Tan, K., Dong, S. H., Liu, X. W., Chen, W. W., Wang, Y. C., Oldroyd, B. P., & Latty, T. (2015). Phantom alternatives influence food preferences in the eastern honeybee A pis cerana. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 84(2), 509-517.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12288URLpmid: 25251672
[37] Trueblood, J. S. (2015). Reference point effects in riskless choice without loss aversion. Decision, 2(1), 13-26.
doi: 10.1037/dec0000015URL
[38] Trueblood, J. S., & Pettibone, J. C. (2017). The phantom decoy effect in perceptual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 157-167.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.1930URL
[39] Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281-299.
doi: 10.1037/h0032955URL
[40] Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327URL
[41] Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179-1189.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179URL
[42] Wang, Z., Jusup, M., Shi, L., Lee, J. H., Iwasa, Y., & Boccaletti, S. (2018). Exploiting a cognitive bias promotes cooperation in social dilemma experiments. Nature Communications, 9, 2954.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05259-5URLpmid: 30054460
[43] Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 767-778.
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.767URL
[44] Zhen, S. S., & Yu, R. J. (2016). The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children. Scientific Reports, 6, 22678.
doi: 10.1038/srep22678URLpmid: 26935899




[1]卢焕华; 王岩; 郭春彦. 从ERP研究看前瞻记忆的神经基础和认知加工机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(03): 426-431.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5190
相关话题/科学 心理 系统 诱饵 深圳大学

  • 领限时大额优惠券,享本站正版考研考试资料!
    大额优惠券
    优惠券领取后72小时内有效,10万种最新考研考试考证类电子打印资料任你选。涵盖全国500余所院校考研专业课、200多种职业资格考试、1100多种经典教材,产品类型包含电子书、题库、全套资料以及视频,无论您是考研复习、考证刷题,还是考前冲刺等,不同类型的产品可满足您学习上的不同需求。 ...
    本站小编 Free壹佰分学习网 2022-09-19
  • 智能时代的工程心理学
    许为(),葛列众浙江大学心理科学研究中心,杭州310058收稿日期:2020-03-27出版日期:2020-09-15发布日期:2020-07-24通讯作者:许为E-mail:xuwei11@zju.edu.cnEngineeringpsychologyintheeraofartificialint ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 心理与教育测验中异常反应侦查新技术:变点分析法
    张龙飞,王晓雯,蔡艳,涂冬波()江西师范大学心理学院,南昌330022收稿日期:2019-10-12出版日期:2020-09-15发布日期:2020-07-24通讯作者:涂冬波E-mail:tudongbo@aliyun.com基金资助:*国家自然科学基金项目(31960186);国家自然科学基金项 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 急性应激影响工作记忆的生理心理机制
    李婉如1,库逸轩2()1华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院,上海2000622中山大学心理学系,广州510006收稿日期:2019-10-31出版日期:2020-09-15发布日期:2020-07-24通讯作者:库逸轩E-mail:kuyixuan@mail.sysu.edu.cn基金资助:*国家社会科 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 气温与气温变化对心理健康的影响
    俞国良1,陈婷婷2,赵凤青2()1中国人民大学心理研究所,北京1008722郑州大学教育学院,郑州450001收稿日期:2019-12-11出版日期:2020-08-15发布日期:2020-06-28通讯作者:赵凤青E-mail:susanfair@163.com基金资助:*教育部人文社会科学研究项 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 身体活动的双系统理论:一种强化学习的视角
    褚昕宇1,3,王泽军2(),肖焕禹31上海工程技术大学体育教学部,上海2016202同济大学国际足球学院,上海2000923上海体育学院休闲学院,上海200438收稿日期:2019-10-24出版日期:2020-08-15发布日期:2020-06-28通讯作者:王泽军E-mail:ddbbt@126 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 瞳孔是心灵的窗口吗?——瞳孔在心理学研究中的应用及测量
    杨晓梦,王福兴(),王燕青,赵婷婷,高春颍,胡祥恩()华中师范大学心理学院,武汉430079收稿日期:2019-06-03出版日期:2020-07-15发布日期:2020-05-21通讯作者:王福兴,胡祥恩E-mail:fxwang@mail.ccnu.edu.cn;xiangenhu@mail.c ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 心理治疗中的脱落
    何姣1,白宝玉2(),夏勉31武汉大学学生工作部大学生心理健康教育中心2武汉大学哲学学院心理学系,武汉4300723华中师范大学心理学院,武汉430079收稿日期:2019-09-30出版日期:2020-07-15发布日期:2020-05-21通讯作者:白宝玉E-mail:psy_bby@163.c ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 行为贫困陷阱的心理机制与管理对策:基于认知与动机双视角
    徐富明1,黄龙2,3(),张慧4,相鹏5(),刘腾飞6,李亚红71南宁师范大学教育科学学院,南宁5302992皖南医学院人文与管理学院,芜湖3410023江西师范大学心理学院,南昌3300224华中科技大学社会学院,武汉4300745南京财经大学法学院,南京2100236广东医科大学人文与管理学院, ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 稀缺对个体心理和行为的影响:基于一个更加整合视角下的阐释
    雷亮(),王菁煜,柳武妹兰州大学管理学院,兰州730000收稿日期:2019-05-13出版日期:2020-04-26发布日期:2020-03-27通讯作者:雷亮E-mail:leil@lzu.edu.cn基金资助:&国家自然科学基金面上项目(71972092);国家自然科学基金重点 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 儿童行为抑制性与心理障碍关联的认知神经过程
    尤媛,王莉()北京大学心理与认知科学学院,北京100871收稿日期:2019-05-05出版日期:2020-04-15发布日期:2020-02-24通讯作者:王莉E-mail:liwang@pku.edu.cn基金资助:国家自然科学基金(31771230)Cognitiveneurologicalp ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01