) 1华南师范大学经济与管理学院, 广州 510006
2广东外语外贸大学商学院, 广州 510006
收稿日期:2021-03-12出版日期:2021-11-15发布日期:2021-09-23通讯作者:孙海龙E-mail:sunhailong@gdufs.edu.cn基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年项目(71901097);广东省自然科学基金面上项目(2019A1515010722);教育部人文社科基金项目青年项目(20YJCZH135);广东省哲学社会科学基金青年项目(GD18YGL05);广东省哲学社会科学基金青年项目(GD19YGL07);广东省自然科学基金粤穗联合基金(2020A1515110429)The trend effect of probability estimation and its influence on decision-making from the perspective of psychological momentum
XIONG Guanxing1, YE Jinming1, SUN Hailong2() 1School of Economics and Management, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510005, China
2School of Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510006, China
Received:2021-03-12Online:2021-11-15Published:2021-09-23Contact:SUN Hailong E-mail:sunhailong@gdufs.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 概率是反映风险与不确定性的重要指标, 概率估计具有趋势效应, 会对决策产生影响。文章描述了概率估计趋势效应的两种表现形式, 概率估计变化的趋势性(即不同时间点概率估计变化产生的趋势作用)与单边概率估计的趋势性(即高于或低于某个概率区间范畴的上界或下界的估计表述所产生的趋势作用), 揭示了概率估计趋势效应对于个体判断、决策行为和非理性决策偏差的影响; 基于心理动量的理论视角提出了一个整合模型, 阐述了概率估计趋势效应催生心理动量体验继而引发后续决策行为的内在机理。未来的研究可进一步关注：多方信息来源主体下概率估计的趋势效应; 动态趋势效应与静态概率估计的交互作用; 风险沟通中的概率估计变化趋势。
图/表 1
图1基于心理动量视角的概率估计的趋势效应影响机制模型
图1基于心理动量视角的概率估计的趋势效应影响机制模型参考文献 55
| [1] | 杜雪蕾, 许洁虹, 苏寅, 李纾. (2012). 用文字概率衡量不确定性: 特征和问题. 心理科学进展, 20(5), 651-661. |
| [2] | 孙庆洲, 邬青渊, 张静, 江程铭, 赵雷, 胡凤培. (2019). 风险决策的概率权重偏差: 心理机制与优化策略. 心理科学进展, 27(5), 905-913. |
| [3] | 谭成慧, 马姗姗, 朱传林, 赵源, 王炫懿, 疏德明, 刘电芝. (2020). 人际互动中的“自我-他人”区分: 多水平的探索. 心理科学进展, 28(11), 1890-1900. |
| [4] | 谭飞, 李爱梅, 孙海龙, 侯芬. (2016). 聚焦“缺失”对当下幸福体验的影响. 心理科学进展, 24(10), 1544-1550. |
| [5] | 王晓田. (2019). 如何用行为经济学应对不确定性: 拓展有效助推的范围. 心理学报, 51(04), 407-414. |
| [6] | 熊冠星. (2020). 克服“束手无策”:化解不确定性的决策之道. 武汉大学出版社. |
| [7] | 张素愚, 王修欣, 杜秀芳. (2018). 任务框架和序列趋势对趋势阻尼的影响. 心理科学, 41(1), 31-37. |
| [8] | Attali, Y. (2013). Perceived hotness affects behavior of basketball players and coaches. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1151-1156. doi: 10.1177/0956797612468452pmid: 23630221 |
| [9] | Brenner, L. A., Griffin, D. W., & Koehler, D. J. (2012). A case-based model of probability and pricing judgments: Biases in buying and selling uncertainty. Management Science, 58(1), 159-178. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1429URL |
| [10] | Briki, W., & Markman, K. D. (2018). Psychological momentum: The phenomenology of goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(9), 1-14. |
| [11] | Briki, W., Markman, K. D., Coudevylle, G. R., Sinnapah, S., & Hue, O. (2015). Momentum sequence and environmental climate influence levels of perceived PM within a sport competition. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(3), 350-357. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1062566URL |
| [12] | Briki, W., & Zoudji, B. (2019). Gaining or losing team ball possession: The dynamics of momentum perception and strategic choice in football coaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01019URL |
| [13] | Caruso, E. M., van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal Doppler Effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24(4), 530-536. doi: 10.1177/0956797612458804URL |
| [14] | Collins, R. N., & Mandel, D. R. (2019). Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 683-695. |
| [15] | Erlandsson, A., Hohle, S. M., Løhre, E., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). The rise and fall of scary numbers: The effect of perceived trends on future estimates, severity ratings, and help-allocations in a cancer context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(11), 618-633. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2018.48.issue-11URL |
| [16] | Ersner-Hershfield, H., Galinsky, A. D., Kray, L. J., & King, B. G. (2010). Company, country, connections: Counterfactual origins increase organizational commitment, patriotism, and social investment. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1479-1486. doi: 10.1177/0956797610382123pmid: 20817783 |
| [17] | Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probability- dependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 567-593. doi: 10.1146/economics.2012.4.issue-1URL |
| [18] | Ferson, S., O'Rawe, J., Antonenko, A., Siegrist, J., Mickley, J., Luhmann, C. C., ... Finkel, A. M. (2015). Natural language of uncertainty: Numeric hedge words. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 57, 19-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2014.11.003URL |
| [19] | Fessel, F., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Hindsight bias, visual aids, and legal decision making: Timing is everything. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 180-193 doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00343.xURL |
| [20] | Gallistel, C. R., Krishan, M., Liu, Y., Miller, R., & Latham, P. E. (2014). The perception of probability. Psychological Review, 121(1), 96-123. doi: 10.1037/a0035232pmid: 24490790 |
| [21] | Guenther, C. L., & Kokotajlo, C. (2017). Psychological momentum and risky decision-making. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 1(2), 43-51. doi: 10.1002/jts5.2017.1.issue-2URL |
| [22] | Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2015). Forecasting forecasts: The trend effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 416-428. |
| [23] | Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2018). More than 50% or less than 70% chance: Pragmatic implications of single-bound probability estimates. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 138-150. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v31.1URL |
| [24] | Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2019). When probabilities change: Perceptions and implications of trends in uncertain climate forecasts. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 555-569. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1459801URL |
| [25] | Howe, L. C., MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Socolow, R. (2019). Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 863-867. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5URL |
| [26] | Hubbard, T. L. (2015). The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1081-1119. doi: 10.1037/bul0000016URL |
| [27] | Hubbard, T. L. (2017a). Toward a general theory of momentum-like effects. Behavioural Processes, 141(8), 50-66. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.02.019URL |
| [28] | Hubbard, T. L. (2017b). Momentum in music: Musical succession as physical motion. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(1), 14-30. doi: 10.1037/pmu0000171URL |
| [29] | Hubbard, T. L. (2019). Momentum-like effects and the dynamics of perception, cognition, and action. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 2155-2170 doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01770-zURL |
| [30] | Hubbard, T. L. (2020). Representational gravity: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 36-55. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01660-3URL |
| [31] | Isaac, M. S., & Brough, A. R. (2014). Judging a part by the size of its whole: The category size bias in probability judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 310-325. doi: 10.1086/676126URL |
| [32] | Iso‐Ahola, S. E., & Dotson, C. O. (2014). Psychological momentum: Why success breeds success. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 19-33. doi: 10.1037/a0036406URL |
| [33] | Jordan, J. S., Cialdella, V., Schloesser, D. S., & Bai, J. (2018). Forms of bias in cognitive science:Moving beyond perception, action, and cognition. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.). Spatial biases in perception and cognition (pp.350-365). New York: Cambridge University Press |
| [34] | Kappes, H. B., & Morewedge, C. K. (2016). Mental simulation as substitute for experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(7), 405-420. doi: 10.1111/spc3.v10.7URL |
| [35] | Kause, A., Townsend, T., & Gaissmaier, W. (2019). Framing climate uncertainty: Frame choices reveal and influence climate change beliefs. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11(1), 199-215. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0002.1URL |
| [36] | Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue. Psychological Science, 22(4), 460-463. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402515pmid: 21415241 |
| [37] | Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. pmid: 11316014 |
| [38] | Løhre, E. (2018). Stronger, sooner, and more certain climate change: A link between certainty and outcome strength in revised forecasts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2531-2547. doi: 10.1177/1747021817746062URL |
| [39] | Løhre, E., Sobkow, A., Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. H. (2019). Framing experts' (dis) agreements about uncertain environmental events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(5), 564-578. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v32.5URL |
| [40] | Løhre, E., & Teigen, K. H. (2017). Probabilities associated with precise and vague forecasts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1014-1026. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v30.5URL |
| [41] | Maglio, S. J., & Polman, E. (2014). Spatial orientation shrinks and expands psychological distance. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1345-1352. doi: 10.1177/0956797614530571pmid: 24815609 |
| [42] | Maglio, S. J., & Polman, E. (2016). Revising probability estimates: Why increasing likelihood means increasing impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 141-158. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000058pmid: 27281350 |
| [43] | Markman, K. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2007). Psychological momentum: Intuitive physics and naive beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 800-812. pmid: 17488872 |
| [44] | Nevin, J. A. (2015). Behavioral Momentum: A Scientific Metaphor. CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing, San Bernadino. |
| [45] | Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Carson Marr, J. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579-1584. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473120URL |
| [46] | Regenwetter, M., & Davis‐Stober, C. P. (2018). The role of independence and stationarity in probabilistic models of binary choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 100-114. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2037pmid: 29805199 |
| [47] | Reh, S., Tröster, C., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399-415. doi: 10.1037/apl0000281URL |
| [48] | Roese, N. J., & Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking:New evidence, new Challenges, new insights. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 56). (pp. 1-79). Academic Press Inc. |
| [49] | Shen, L., & Hsee, C. K. (2017). Numerical nudging: Using an accelerating score to enhance performance. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1077-1086. doi: 10.1177/0956797617700497URL |
| [50] | Suter, R. S., Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). How affect shapes risky choice: Distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(4), 437-449. doi: 10.1002/bdm.v29.4URL |
| [51] | Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A. M., & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). Single limit interval estimates as reference points. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(3), 383-406. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720URL |
| [52] | Teigen, K. H., Løhre, E., & Hohle, S. M. (2018). The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(4), 309-321. |
| [53] | Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Random House. |
| [54] | Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323. doi: 10.1007/BF00122574URL |
| [55] | Witt, J. K. (2018). Spatial biases from action. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.). Spatial biases in perception and cognition (pp.307-323). New York: Cambridge University Press. |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 李爱梅, 车敬上, 刘楠, 孙海龙, 周玮. 海量信息如何影响跨期决策?基于注意资源的理论视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(9): 1521-1533. |
| [2] | 贺汝婉, 李斌, 张淑颖, 崔馨月, 雷励. 时间与金钱概念对消费者购买决策的不同影响及其心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(9): 1684-1695. |
| [3] | 何嘉梅, 金磊. 目标概念的辨析及其对决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1410-1419. |
| [4] | 刘传军, 廖江群. 道德困境研究的范式沿革及其理论价值[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1508-1520. |
| [5] | 王晓田, 王娜, 何金波. 前瞻性情绪作为社会风险的信息源假说：公共场景下风险决策的情绪及文化机制探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 959-966. |
| [6] | 包寒吴霜, 蔡华俭. 姓名对个体心理与行为的实际影响：证据和理论[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 1067-1085. |
| [7] | 冯廷勇, 王雪珂, 苏缇. 拖延行为的发展认知机制及神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 586-596. |
| [8] | 任小云, 段锦云, 冯成志. 个体采纳与群体采纳：决策过程中的两类建议采纳行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 549-559. |
| [9] | 蒋倩妮, 庄想灵, 马国杰. 自动驾驶汽车与行人交互中的沟通界面设计：基于行人过街决策模型的评估[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(11): 1979-1992. |
| [10] | 杨玲, 刘文鑫, 张炀, 张建勋, 牛禄霖. 物质成瘾领域延迟折扣研究中的外部效度问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 140-149. |
| [11] | 黄龙, 徐富明, 胡笑羽. 眼动轨迹匹配法：一种研究决策过程的新方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1454-1461. |
| [12] | 张银花, 李红, 吴寅. 计算模型在道德认知研究中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1042-1055. |
| [13] | 徐富明, 黄龙, 张慧, 相鹏, 刘腾飞, 李亚红. 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[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 681-691. |
| [14] | 李庆功, 王震炎, 孙捷元, 师妍. 网约车场景中声誉和面孔可信度对女性信任判断的影响以及直觉性思维的调节作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 746-751. |
| [15] | 张紫琦, 贺则宇, 罗文波, 伍海燕. 元认知中自信心对联合决策的预测作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(4): 604-611. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5624
