Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The process of individual’s risk perception on medical information can be understood from the perspective of information processing. The influencing factors of risk perception on medical information are categorized into three aspects, namely, the source of medical information, the content and form of medical information, and the subject of information processing. The cognitive mechanism of individual’s risk perception on medical information was discussed based on experience-analysis processing theory and verbatim-gist processing theory. This study recommends increased attention to balance the general and specific studies of risk perception on medical information. Moreover, the standard and specific measurements should be combined, and research in the context of China’s medical system should be expanded. Furthermore, a series of theoretical and empirical research should be developed, and preventive measures and evidence-based supporting policies must be established.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Intertemporal choice is an important and ubiquitous concept that refers to decisions involving tradeoffs among outcomes at different points of time. It is not only a unique feature of human behavior but also relevant to policymaking and national welfare. Dimension-based models, such as tradeoff model, equate-to-differentiate theory, and similarity model, assume that individuals tend to compare the difference between dimensions of delay and outcome before deciding on a single dimension when choosing between a smaller-sooner option and a larger-later one. Considerable empirical evidence from behavioral and process data supports the use of dimension-based models. The existing dimension-based models provide qualitative explanations for an individual’s intertemporal choice and focus on “which dimension is the greater difference dimension”, but ignore the preference of dimension-based difference (i.e., “how much different of the difference between the two dimensions”). In the present study, we used eye-tracking technology to examine the relationship between the preference of dimension-based difference, which is estimated by the tradeoff model, and the information searching process, which is reflected by eye-tracking measures.Two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses. A total of 75 college students (61 females; mean age = 20.9 ± 2.4 years) participated in Experiment 1. Participants were told to complete two tasks. In the intertemporal choice task, participants chose their preferred option between the two intertemporal options, and their eye movements were recorded in the task. In the analogue scale task, participants were asked to indicate their subjective dimension-based difference judgment by using numbers 1~7. In Experiment 2, we recruited 59 college students (33 females; mean age = 21.9 ± 2.1 years) to participate in the experiment. The tasks and procedures were similar to Experiment 1 except that the participants were asked to repeat the intertemporal choice task twice. The results indicated that preference of dimension-based difference (PDD), which is estimated by the tradeoff model, correlated with the subjective dimension-based difference judgment measured by the analogue scale task (Experiment 1) and could negatively predict the choice reversals (Experiment 2). These findings proved the validity of the estimation of PDD. The results in the two experiments consistently revealed that decision time, gaze transition entropy (a measure of visual scanning efficiency), and stationary gaze entropy (a measure of the level of even distribution across different areas of interest) could negatively predict the PDD, indicating that the information searching process during intertemporal choice could reflect the preference of dimension-based difference. We also found that the outcome gaze proportion (a measure of attention allocation) could predict the dimension-based difference judgment, which is consistent with previous research. Our findings proved the validity of the estimation method of PDD, which could quantitatively estimate the PDD when making an intertemporal choice based on their choices without extra inquiry. The current research highlighted the correlation between the preference of dimension-based difference and the information searching process, providing further process evidence for dimension-based intertemporal models. Future studies that focus on developing intertemporal models involving eye movements should consider replicating the pattern between PDD and eye-tracking measures as revealed in the present study when running data simulations. Our findings also suggest that compared to the determinant models, the probabilistic models can better describe an individual’s intertemporal choice, thereby highlighting the direction of the development of intertemporal models.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation-maximization-based theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. Substantial research has demonstrated that people do not follow the logical process suggested by expectation-maximization-based theories when making risky choices but rather rely on simplifying heuristics. From our perspective, the possible reason why mainstream decision theorists did not abandon the framework of expectation is that these theorists never doubted the validity of the expectation rule as a descriptive rule in describing decision-making under risk. We believe that expectation-maximization-based theories may capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for everyone. However, whether these theories could capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for themselves cannot be taken for granted. We thus used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one. A total of 52 college students participated in the experiment. Three risky choice tasks were conducted in the present study: a D-everyone task, a D-multiple task, and a D-single task. In the D-everyone task, participants were asked to choose the more optimal option out of two options under the assumption that their selection would be the final decision for everyone who was facing the same choice—that is, everyone would be subject to the same choice but could receive different outcomes. In the D-multiple task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied a total of 100 times. In the D-single task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied only once to themselves. The participants’ eye movements were recorded while they performed the tasks. Behavioral results revealed that, compared with the D-single task, participants selected more choices correctly predicted by EV and EU theories, and took a longer time to make a decision in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks. Furthermore, eye movement measurements revealed the following. (1) The scanpath patterns of the D-everyone task and D-multiple task were similar but different from those of the D-single task. (2) The depth of information acquisition and the level of complexity of information processing in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was higher than that in the D-single task. (3) The direction of information search in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was more alternative-based than that in the D-single task. (4) The eye-tracking measures mediated the relationship between the task and the EV-consistent choice. In summary, behavioral and eye movement results supported our hypotheses that participants were likely to follow an expectation strategy in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks, whereas they were likely to follow a heuristic/non- expectation strategy in the D-single task. We found that expectation-maximization-based theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. The evidence for the discrepancy between everyone and every one, which was first reported in our study, implied that the possible reason why expectation-maximization-based theories do not work is that a default compatibility between the full set (everyone) and the subset (every one) does not exist. Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of the boundaries of expectation-maximization-based theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models. Our findings may also shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： The fundamental issue regarding the difference between humans and animals has puzzled researchers in a broad range of academic fields and specializations. The ability to trade, which symbolizes the progress of human civilization, may be regarded as an important distinction between humans and animals. To sustain a trading activity, people need to deal with the possible issues of long-distance delivery (spatial choice), delayed delivery (intertemporal choice), and unfulfilled delivery (risky choice) in the exchange of goods. These choices of different domains were well represented by the tangible (outcome) and intangible (probability/time/space) dimensions. Normally, the family of compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by comparing options which have been converted into the same units of quantity (Overall Payoff A vs. Overall Payoff B) in a way of “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Whereas, the family of non-compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by directly comparing values measured using different units of quantity (∆OutcomeA,B vs. ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/∆SpaceA,B) in a way of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rule. To test whether human beings have the potential to deal with the intangible dimensions of the data, the present paper attempts to obtain evidence to support the “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rules from a variety of decision tasks, which were formed by combing both tangible and intangible dimensions. Study 1 aims to examine whether outcome difference between options and the probability/time/space difference between options were directly compared in three choice domains by using the eye-tracking technique. Our findings show that, from the group-level, decision makers perform a consistent dimension-based search pattern in the three domains, indicating that the decision processes are more dependent on a way of intra-dimensional comparison. From the individual-level, the vast majority of participants were classified as decision makers who using dimension-based strategy. Moreover, the two index we constructed, difference in gaze duration and difference in saccades frequency, could significantly predict the behavioral choice shift. Those results provide supporting evidence for dimensioned-based strategy in three choice domains. However, Study 1 is still unable to answer the further question of whether the final decisions are reached through a process of comparing the eye movement information of ∆OutcomeA,B with ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/ ∆SpaceA,B. Study 2 therefore borrows a Visual Analog Scale to further examine whether the ∆OutcomeA,B and ∆ProbabilityA,B/∆DelayA,B/∆SpaceA,B were treated in an equate-to-differentiate way in reaching the final decisions in three domains. Our findings indicate that the decisions can be made by the way of “intra-dimensional difference evaluation” prescribed by equate-to-differentiate theory. The current paper provides supportive evidence for the comparison rule of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” and break a new ground different from the “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Future studies may consider the development of a general model to explain the choices of three different domains.
Subjects: Psychology >> Applied Psychology submitted time 2023-01-02
Abstract：
The fundamental issue regarding the difference between humans and animals has puzzled researchers in a broad range of academic fields and specializations. The ability to trade, which symbolizes the progress of human civilization, may be regarded as an important distinction between humans and animals. To sustain a trading activity, people need to deal with the possible issues of long-distance delivery (spatial choice), delayed delivery (intertemporal choice), and unfulfilled delivery (risky choice) in the exchange of goods.
These choices of different domains were well represented by the tangible (outcome) and intangible (probability/time/space) dimensions. Normally, the family of compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by comparing options which have been converted into the same units of quantity (Overall Payoff A vs. Overall Payoff B) in a way of “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Whereas, the family of non-compensatory rules assumes that choice should be reached by directly comparing values measured using different units of quantity (?Outcome A, B vs. ?Probability A, B /?Delay A, B /?Space A, B) in a way of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rule. To test whether human beings have the potential to deal with the intangible dimensions of the data, the present paper attempts to obtain evidence to support the “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” rules from a variety of decision tasks, which were formed by combing both tangible and intangible dimensions.
Study 1 aims to examine whether outcome difference between options and the probability/time/space difference between options were directly compared in three choice domains by using the eye-tracking technique. Our findings show that, from the group-level, decision makers perform a consistent dimension-based search pattern in the three domains, indicating that the decision processes are more dependent on a way of intra-dimensional comparison. From the individual-level, the vast majority of participants were classified as decision makers who using dimension-based strategy. Moreover, the two index we constructed, difference in gaze duration and difference in saccades frequency, could significantly predict the behavioral choice shift. Those results provide supporting evidence for dimensioned-based strategy in three choice domains.
However, Study 1 is still unable to answer the further question of whether the final decisions are reached through a process of comparing the eye movement information of ?Outcome A,B with ?Probability A,B /?Delay A,B /?Space A,B . Study 2 therefore borrows a Visual Analog Scale to further examine whether the ?Outcome A,B and ?Probability A,B /?Delay A,B /?Space A,B were treated in an equate-to-differentiate way in reaching the final decisions in three domains. Our findings indicate that the decisions can be made by the way of “intra-dimensional difference evaluation” prescribed by equate-to-differentiate theory.
The current paper provides supportive evidence for the comparison rule of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” and break a new ground different from the “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Future studies may consider the development of a general model to explain the choices of three different domains.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-10-30
Abstract：
Intertemporal choice is an important and ubiquitous concept that refers to decisions involving tradeoffs among outcomes at different points of time. It is not only a unique feature of human behavior but also relevant to policymaking and national welfare. Dimension-based models, such as tradeoff model, equate-to-differentiate theory, and similarity model, assume that individuals tend to compare the difference between dimensions of delay and outcome before deciding on a single dimension when choosing between a smaller-sooner option and a larger-later one. Considerable empirical evidence from behavioral and process data supports the use of dimension-based models. The existing dimension-based models provide qualitative explanations for an individual’s intertemporal choice and focus on “which dimension is the greater difference dimension”, but ignore the preference of dimension-based difference (i.e., “how much different of the difference between the two dimensions”). In the present study, we used eye-tracking technology to examine the relationship between the preference of dimension-based difference, which is estimated by the tradeoff model, and the information searching process, which is reflected by eye-tracking measures.
Two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses. A total of 75 college students (61 females; mean age = 20.9 ± 2.4 years) participated in Experiment 1. Participants were told to complete two tasks. In the intertemporal choice task, participants chose their preferred option between the two intertemporal options, and their eye movements were recorded in the task. In the analogue scale task, participants were asked to indicate their subjective dimension-based difference judgment by using numbers 1~7. In Experiment 2, we recruited 59 college students (33 females; mean age = 21.9 ± 2.1 years) to participate in the experiment. The tasks and procedures were similar to Experiment 1 except that the participants were asked to repeat the intertemporal choice task twice.
The results indicated that preference of dimension-based difference (PDD), which is estimated by the tradeoff model, correlated with the subjective dimension-based difference judgment measured by the analogue scale task (Experiment 1) and could negatively predict the choice reversals (Experiment 2). These findings proved the validity of the estimation of PDD. The results in the two experiments consistently revealed that decision time, gaze transition entropy (a measure of visual scanning efficiency), and stationary gaze entropy (a measure of the level of even distribution across different areas of interest) could negatively predict the PDD, indicating that the information searching process during intertemporal choice could reflect the preference of dimension-based difference. We also found that the outcome gaze proportion (a measure of attention allocation) could predict the dimension-based difference judgment, which is consistent with previous research.
Our findings proved the validity of the estimation method of PDD, which could quantitatively estimate the PDD when making an intertemporal choice based on their choices without extra inquiry. The current research highlighted the correlation between the preference of dimension-based difference and the information searching process, providing further process evidence for dimension-based intertemporal models. Future studies that focus on developing intertemporal models involving eye movements should consider replicating the pattern between PDD and eye-tracking measures as revealed in the present study when running data simulations. Our findings also suggest that compared to the determinant models, the probabilistic models can better describe an individual’s intertemporal choice, thereby highlighting the direction of the development of intertemporal models.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-29
Abstract： Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these expectation theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. With doubts about the default compatibility between everyone (full set) and every one (subset), we used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one. We found that expectation theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition, but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the boundaries of expectation theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models, and may shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-25
Abstract：
Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation-maximization-based theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. Substantial research has demonstrated that people do not follow the logical process suggested by expectation-maximization-based theories when making risky choices but rather rely on simplifying heuristics. From our perspective, the possible reason why mainstream decision theorists did not abandon the framework of expectation is that these theorists never doubted the validity of the expectation rule as a descriptive rule in describing decision-making under risk. We believe that expectation-maximization-based theories may capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for everyone. However, whether these theories could capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for themselves cannot be taken for granted. We thus used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one.
A total of 52 college students participated in the experiment. Three risky choice tasks were conducted in the present study: a D-everyone task, a D-multiple task, and a D-single task. In the D-everyone task, participants were asked to choose the more optimal option out of two options under the assumption that their selection would be the final decision for everyone who was facing the same choice—that is, everyone would be subject to the same choice but could receive different outcomes. In the D-multiple task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied a total of 100 times. In the D-single task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied only once to themselves. The participants’ eye movements were recorded while they performed the tasks.
Behavioral results revealed that, compared with the D-single task, participants selected more choices correctly predicted by EV and EU theories, and took a longer time to make a decision in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks. Furthermore, eye movement measurements revealed the following. (1) The scanpath patterns of the D-everyone task and D-multiple task were similar but different from those of the D-single task. (2) The depth of information acquisition and the level of complexity of information processing in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was higher than that in the D-single task. (3) The direction of information search in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was more alternative-based than that in the D-single task. (4) The eye-tracking measures mediated the relationship between the task and the EV-consistent choice. In summary, behavioral and eye movement results supported our hypotheses that participants were likely to follow an expectation strategy in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks, whereas they were likely to follow a heuristic/non-expectation strategy in the D-single task.We found that expectation-maximization-based theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. The evidence for the discrepancy between everyone and every one, which was first reported in our study, implied that the possible reason why expectation-maximization-based theories do not work is that a default compatibility between the full set (everyone) and the subset (every one) does not exist. Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of the boundaries of expectation-maximization-based theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models. Our findings may also shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2021-01-20
Abstract： A vaccine safety scare is defined as the phenomenon in which the public’s distrust of the validity and safety of vaccination is triggered by negative vaccine-related media reports or vaccine conspiracy theories. Such misinformation further leads to a dramatic drop in the vaccination coverage or willingness of individuals to be vaccinated domestically or globally. Together with the influence of the negative prior beliefs of vaccination and the experiential processing and gist extraction of individual cognition, this information gains further social amplification during its dissemination in society. Current psychological counter-strategies to address vaccine safety scares mainly consist of belief inoculation, reconstruction of risk perception, and satisfaction of informational needs and emotional appeals. However, the ecological validity of these methods remains unexplored. In addition, sharing positive vaccine information should be encouraged to debunk vaccine misinformation.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2020-04-29
Abstract： Exploring the process of individual risk perception on medical information from the perspective of information processing. The influencing factors of risk perception on medical information are categorized into three aspects, namely, the source of medical information, the content and form of medical information, and the subject of information processing. The cognitive mechanism of individual risk perception on medical information was discussed based on experience-analysis processing theory and verbatim-gist processing theory. This study recommends increased attention to balancing the general and specific studies of risk perception on medical information. Moreover, the standard and specific measurements should be combined, and research in the context of China’s medical system should be expanded. Furthermore, a series of theoretical and empirical research should be developed, and preventive measures and evidence-based supporting policies must be established. "
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment