【摘要】：背景風險決策是指個體在解決某一問題或事情時所面臨含有多種概率明確選項的情境中,權(quán)衡不同選項的主觀預(yù)期價值從而做出決策的過程;調(diào)節(jié)定向作為一種動機原則,不僅影響著人們的認知評價,也影響人們的決策判斷;框架類型仍在風險決策中發(fā)揮著重要作用,而研究這三者之間的關(guān)系的研究則較少。基于此,本研究對不同調(diào)節(jié)定向的個體在不同框架下的風險決策的特點進行研究,并借助于事件相關(guān)電位技術(shù)探究其神經(jīng)電生理機制。目的本研究旨在考察調(diào)節(jié)定向與框架類型影響風險決策的特點以及不同調(diào)節(jié)定向個體在任務(wù)完成中的神經(jīng)電生理機制。方法實驗一:通過調(diào)節(jié)定向問卷篩選符合實驗條件者61人(促進27人,防御34人)。采用2(調(diào)節(jié)定向類型:防御定向、促進定向)×2(框架類型:正性框架、負性框架)×2(風險偏好:確定方案、風險方案)三因素混合實驗設(shè)計。借助E-prime2.0編程呈現(xiàn)實驗并記錄反應(yīng)數(shù)據(jù)。實驗二:通過調(diào)節(jié)定向問卷篩選符合實驗條件者30人(促進、防御各15人)。采用2(調(diào)節(jié)定向類型:促進定向、防御定向)×2(框架類型:正性框架,負性框架)×2(風險偏好:風險尋求、風險規(guī)避)×3(半球位置:左、中、右)四因素混合實驗設(shè)計,借助E-prime2.0編程呈現(xiàn)刺激并運用Neuroscan腦電記錄儀記錄腦電波形。結(jié)果實驗一結(jié)果:在反應(yīng)時上,風險偏好的主效應(yīng)顯著,F(1,59)=27.612,P0.01,η2=0.319,框架類型、風險偏好與調(diào)節(jié)定向類型的交互作用顯著,F(1,59)=4.439,P0.05,η2=0.070,未發(fā)現(xiàn)調(diào)節(jié)定向個體之間的差異。在反應(yīng)次數(shù)上,風險偏好的主效應(yīng)顯著,F(1,59)=12.894,P0.01,η2=0.101;框架類型與風險偏好、調(diào)節(jié)定向的三階交互作用顯著,F(1,59)=7.168,P0.01,η2=0.108,進一步檢驗簡單效應(yīng)發(fā)現(xiàn),在正性框架下,促進定向的個體選擇風險尋求的次數(shù)顯著多于防御定向的個體,F(1,59)=6.599,P0.05,η2=0.101,而風險規(guī)避的次數(shù)則相反,F(1,59)=7.445,P0.01,η2=0.112。實驗二結(jié)果:前額葉的N1波幅:調(diào)節(jié)定向的主效應(yīng)不顯著,調(diào)節(jié)定向、框架類型與半球位置的交互作用顯著,F(2,56)=4.467,P0.05,η2=0.138,即在負性框架下,促進定向的個體在左前額葉誘發(fā)的N1波幅顯著低于防御定向的個體,F(1,28)=5.281,P0.05,η2=0.159。額葉的N1波幅:調(diào)節(jié)定向的主效應(yīng)不顯著,F(1,28)=3.020,P0.05,η2=0.097,調(diào)節(jié)定向、框架類型與半球位置的交互作用顯著,F(2,56)=3.521,P0.05,η2=0.112,即在負性框架下,防御定向在左半球誘發(fā)的N1波幅強度高于促進定向,F(1,28)=5.281,P0.05,η2=0.159。調(diào)節(jié)定向、風險偏好與半球位置的交互作用顯著,F(2,56)=3.166,P=0.050,η2=0.102,即在左半球,防御定向選擇風險方案時誘發(fā)的N1波幅強度高于促進定向個體誘發(fā)的,F(1,28)=4.233,P0.05,η2=0.131。后頂區(qū)的P3波幅:調(diào)節(jié)定向的主效應(yīng)顯著,F(1,28)=6.352,P0.05,η2=0.185,促進定向個體的P3波幅低于防御定向。結(jié)論(1)調(diào)節(jié)定向、框架類型和風險偏好共同影響風險決策。(2)在信息加工初始階段,調(diào)節(jié)定向與框架類型、風險偏好共同影響風險決策的。(3)在信息深度加工階段,調(diào)節(jié)定向影響風險決策,同時,這種影響還體現(xiàn)在不同半球的激活水平上。
[Abstract]:Background risk decision-making refers to the process of making decision making by weighing the subjective expected value of different options in the situation where the individual is confronted with a variety of definite options when solving a problem or thing. As a motive principle, adjusting orientation not only affects people's cognitive evaluation, but also affects people's decision judgment; the framework type is also influenced. It still plays an important role in risk decision-making, and the study of the relationship between the three is less. Based on this, this study studies the characteristics of the risk decision making of the individuals with different orientations under different frameworks, and explores the physiological mechanism of their God via the event related potential technology. The purpose of this study is to investigate the regulation. The characteristics of risk decision making with the type of orientation and frame type and the neurophysiological mechanism of different Orienteering individuals in the task completion. Method Experiment 1: screening 61 persons (27 persons, 34 people) by adjusting the directional questionnaire (promoting 27 persons, defending 34 persons). Using 2 (regulating orientation type: Defense orientation, promoting orientation) * 2 (frame type: positive frame Frame, negative frame) * 2 (risk preference: determining the scheme, risk scheme) three factors mixed experiment design. Using E-prime2.0 programming to present experiments and record the response data. Experiment two: select 30 people (promote, defend each 15) by adjusting the directional questionnaire to meet the experimental conditions. Adopt 2 (regulate orientation type: promote orientation, defense orientation) x 2 Type: positive frame, negative frame) * 2 (risk preference: risk seeking, risk aversion) x 3 (hemispherical position: left, middle, right) four factors mixed experiment design, using E-prime2.0 programming to show stimulation and use Neuroscan EEG recorder to record brain wave shape. Fruit test results: at the reaction time, the main effect of risk preference is significant, F (1,59) =27. 612, P0.01, ETA 2=0.319, framework type, risk preference and regulation orientation type interaction significant, F (1,59) =4.439, P0.05, ETA 2=0.070, not found the difference between directional individuals. In the number of reactions, the main effect of risk preference is significant, F (1,59) =12.894, P0.01, and ETA 2=0.101; frame type and risk preference, regulating the three order interaction of orientation. The effect is significant, F (1,59) =7.168, P0.01, and ETA 2=0.108. Further test the simple effect found that under the positive framework, the number of risk seeking for directional individual selection is more than that of the defense oriented individuals, F (1,59) =6.599, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.101, while the number of risk aversion is the opposite, F (1,59) experiment two results: prefrontal lobe N1 amplitude: the main effect of regulating orientation is not significant, regulating orientation, the interaction between the frame type and the hemispherical position is significant. F (2,56) =4.467, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.138, that is, under the negative frame, the N1 wave induced in the left prefrontal lobe is significantly lower than that of the defenses, and the amplitude of the F (1,28) =5.281, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.159. frontal lobe The main effect of the node orientation is not significant, F (1,28) =3.020, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.097, regulating the orientation, the interaction between the frame type and the hemispherical position is significant, F (2,56) =3.521, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.112, that is, under the negative frame, the N1 wave amplitude induced by the defensive orientation in the left hemisphere is higher than that of the promotion orientation. The interaction of hemispherical positions is significant, F (2,56) =3.166, P=0.050, and ETA 2=0.102, that is, in the left hemisphere, the amplitude of N1 amplitude induced by the defensive selection risk scheme is higher than that induced by the directed individual, and the P3 amplitude of the F (1,28) =4.233, P0.05, and ETA 2=0.131. is significant. The P3 amplitude of the body is lower than the defensive orientation. Conclusion (1) regulating orientation, frame type and risk preference jointly influence risk decision-making. (2) risk preference affects risk decision together in the initial stage of information processing, and risk preference affects risk decision-making together. (3) at the depth of information processing, it regulates directional impact risk decision-making, and this effect is also reflected in this effect. The activation level of different hemispheres.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：新鄉(xiāng)醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：B842

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張鳳華;方俠輝;劉書培;;決策框架和調(diào)節(jié)定向?qū)δ：?guī)避的影響[J];中國臨床心理學(xué)雜志;2015年06期

2 湯志偉;韓嘯;李潔;;信息外部表征形式對個體決策框架效應(yīng)的影響研究[J];情報雜志;2015年03期

3 侯偉;;決策神經(jīng)科學(xué)與事件相關(guān)電位技術(shù)述評[J];商;2015年04期

4 張健;韓玉昌;張健東;;認知風格和性別對不同類型框架效應(yīng)的影響[J];遼寧師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2015年01期

5 史欣;劉青蕊;韓穎;付艷霞;;事件相關(guān)電位-P_(300)[J];現(xiàn)代電生理學(xué)雜志;2014年04期

6 竇凱;聶衍剛;王玉潔;黎建斌;沈汪兵;;自我損耗促進沖動決策:來自行為和ERPs的證據(jù)[J];心理學(xué)報;2014年10期

7 張文昌;于維英;劉燕芬;張瑋;;調(diào)節(jié)定向?qū)β殬I(yè)選擇決策的影響[J];心理研究;2014年05期

8 李海軍;徐富明;王偉;相鵬;羅寒冰;;判斷與決策中的情感啟發(fā)式[J];心理科學(xué);2014年05期

9 劉揚;孫彥;;行為決策中框架效應(yīng)研究新思路——從風險決策到跨期決策,從言語框架到圖形框架[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2014年08期

10 辛媛媛;張笑;鄧垠;馮廷勇;;風險對兩類跨期選擇的影響:一項ERP研究[J];心理學(xué)探新;2014年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王凱;突發(fā)事件下決策者的框架效應(yīng)研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 崔劍海;自我擴張與調(diào)節(jié)定向?qū)τH密關(guān)系影響的研究[D];西南大學(xué);2013年

2 李蘭;情緒啟動對不同框架風險決策的影響[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2152304