网购中的比率偏差：框架效应对产品购买意愿的影响
Ratio Bias in Online Shopping: Effect of Frame Type on Willingness to Buy

DOI: 10.12677/AP.2019.94093, PP. 757-763

Keywords: 比率偏差，框架效应，网购意愿
Ratio Bias, Framing Effect, Online Shopping Intention

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

本研究基于前人研究的小概率下的比率偏差现象，通过设置积极–消极框架和评价的绝对数量，以情景实验的方式探讨两者共同作用下消费者对产品购买意愿的影响。结果显示：1) 积极框架和消极框架下消费者的购买意愿都产生比率偏差现象，即在比率相同的情况下，被试认为以较大数呈现的事件更可能发生；2) 评价绝对数量和框架效应交互影响消费者购买意愿。好评绝对数量与差评绝对数量等效时，积极框架下消费者的购买意愿明显高于消极框架。结果表明比率偏差与框架效应可以影响网购意愿。
In this study, we conduct an experiment in framing effect, based on previous study of ratio bias of big probability events, to explore the combined effect on consumers’ purchase intention for products. The results show that: 1) the consumers’ willingness to buy is effected by ratio bias, both in positive and negative framework. That is, in the same ratio, participants tend to choose the events that have a higher absolute number; 2) consumers’ purchase intention is influenced by the interaction between the absolute number and the frame type. When the number of praise is equal to the bad, participants are more likely to pick products in the positive framework than the negative framework. The test indicates that ratio bias and frame type can affect the purchase intention.

References

[1]	邓颖, 徐富明, 李欧, 史燕伟, 刘程浩(2016). 社会偏好中的框架效应. 心理科学进展, 24(4), 622-632.
[2]	段锦云, 朱月龙, 陈婧(2003). 心理距离对风险决策框架效应的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1404-1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00185-4
[3]	韩玉昌, 张健, 杨文兵(2014). 认知风格影响框架效应的ERP研究. 心理科学, 37(3), 549-554.
[4]	何清华, 薛贵, 陈春辉, 董奇, 陈传升(2014). 遗传因素在风险决策加工中的作用. 心理科学进展, 22(2), 191-204.
[5]	梁凤华, 段锦云(2018). 道德判断中的框架效应: 一个新的视角. 心理学探新, 38(1), 42-28. https://doi.org/10.5200/sm-hs.2018.047
[6]	刘扬, 孙彦(2014). 行为决策中框架效应研究新思路——从风险决策到跨期决策, 从言语框架到图形框架. 心理科学进展, 24(8), 1205-1217.
[7]	马华维, 赵方明, 姚琦(2017). 网购中的比率偏差:好评状况和卷入度对产品购买意愿的影响. 心理科学, 40(2), 436-441.
[8]	孟贞贞, 徐富明, 孔诗晓, 李海军, 相鹏(2013). 行为决策中的比率偏差. 心理科学进展, 21(5), 886-892.
[9]	王冬雪(2017). 框架效应对消费者购买决策的影响. 硕士论文, 上海: 上海师范大学.
[10]	王青春, 阴国恩, 张善霞, 姚姝君(2011). 青少年决策中的风险选择框架效应. 心理与行为研究, 9(4), 268-272.
[11]	吴鹏, 肖黎, 姜沁培, 张家铭(2016). 得失框架下时间和风险对跨期选择的影响. 心理学探新, 36(6), 508-513.
[12]	徐四华, 方卓, 饶恒毅(2013). 真实和虚拟金钱奖赏影响风险决策行为. 心理学报, 45(8), 847-886.
[13]	张阳阳, 饶俪琳, 梁竹苑, 周媛, 李纾(2014). 风险决策过程验证: 补偿/非补偿模型之争的新认识与新证据. 心理科学进展, 22(2), 205-219.
[14]	Alonso, D., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2003). Irrational Decisions: Attending to Numbers Rather than Ratios. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1537-1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00368-9
[15]	Amsel, E., Close, J., Sadler, E., & Klaczynski, P. (2009). College Students’ Awareness of Irrational Judgments on Gambling Tasks: A Dual-Process Account. Journal of Psychology, 143, 293-317. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.3.293-317
[16]	Ayadi, N., & Lapeyre, A. (2016). Consumer Purchase Intentions for Green Products: Mediating Role of wtp and Moderating Effects of Framing. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22, 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.888574
[17]	Denes-Raj, V., Epstein, S., & Cole, J. (1995). The Generality of the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1083-1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952110009
[18]	Evans, A. M., & van Beest, I. (2017). Gain-Loss Framing Effects in Dilemmas of Trust and Reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.012
[19]	Gosling, C. J., & Moutier, S. (2017). High But Not Low Probability of Gain Elicits a Positive Feeling Leading to the Framing Effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00081
[20]	Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136
[21]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
[22]	Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory and Subjective Probability: Further Evidence for Two Conceptual Systems. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 534-544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.534
[23]	Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
[24]	Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W., & Mcfarland, C. (1989). When a Coincidence Is Suspicious: The Role of Mental Simulation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 581-589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.581
[25]	Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8
[26]	Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The Relation of Rational and Experiential Information Processing Styles to Personality, Basic Beliefs, and the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 972-987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
[27]	Passerini, G., Macchi, L., & Bagassi, M. (2012). A Methodological Approach to Ratio Bias. Judgment & Decision Making, 7, 602-617.
[28]	Peters, E. (2012). Beyond Comprehension: The Role of Numeracy in Judgments and Decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429960
[29]	Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, Ratio Bias, and Denominator Neglect in Judgments of Risk and Probability. Learning & Individual Differences, 18, 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011
[30]	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, 453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Full-Text