全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

不同情绪效价下风险决策中的性别差异
The Gender Difference in Risk Decision-Making under Different Affective Valence

DOI: 10.12677/AP.2023.132065, PP. 528-534

Keywords: 风险决策,情绪效价,性别差异,爱荷华博弈任务(IGT)
Risk Decision-Making
, Affective Valence, Gender Difference, IGT

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

目的:探讨性别和情绪效价对个体风险决策的影响。方法:让60名被诱发相应情绪的大学生被试完成爱荷华博弈任务(Iowa Gambling Task,简称IGT),采用2 (性别) × 2 (情绪效价)混合实验设计。结果:1)情绪效价主效应不显著(F = 0.01, P > 0.05);性别主效应显著(F = 9.16, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.14)。2) 性别与情绪的交互作用显著(F = 37.34, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.39),男性被试在积极情绪下的风险决策净得分显著小于消极情绪下的净得分(F = 18.30, P < 0.05,\"\" = 0.39),女性被试在积极情绪下的风险决策净得分显著大于消极情绪下的净得分(F = 19.42, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.40)。结论:男性在正性情绪下偏好风险、负性情绪下规避风险;女性在正性情绪下规避风险,负性情绪下偏好风险。
Objective: To explore the effects of gender and affective valence on individual risk decision-making. Methods: 60 college students induced corresponding affection were asked to complete the Iowa gaming task (IGT). And 2 (gender) × 2 (affective valence) mixed experimental design was adopted. Results: (1) The main effect of affective valence was not significant (F = 0.01, P > 0.05); the main effect of gender was significant (F = 9.16, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.14). (2) The interaction between gender and affective valence was significant (F = 37.34, P < 0.05), \"\"= 0.39), and the effect of affective valence on male (F = 18.30, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.39) and female (F = 19.42, P < 0.05, \"\"= 0.40). Conclusion: When confronting risk decision-making, men prefer risk under positive affection and avoid risk under negative affection but women avoid risk under positive affection and prefer risk under negative affection.

References

[1]  冯申梅, 杜红芹, 刘智文, 朱金富(2019). 情绪与性别对医疗风险决策的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志, 27(4), 627-631.
[2]  李曼, 刘欣宇, 赵佳(2020). 情绪效价对早期生活应激大学生风险决策的影响. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 29(11), 1014-1019.
[3]  刘晓东, 刘力臻(2017). 预期情绪动机观与经济决策悖论问题的消解. 当代经济 研究, (7), 52-58.
[4]  陆翠薇, 夏璐, 李德阳, 谭斯祺, 彭君媛, 雷朝艳, 党彩萍(2021). 偶然情绪的效价和强度对风险决策的交互影响. 中国健康心理学杂志, 29(11), 1746-1752.
[5]  张卫东, 刁静, Constance J.S. (2004). 正、负性情绪的跨文化心理测量: PANAS维度结构检验. 心理科学, 27(1), 77-79.
[6]  张玉群, 王晓钧(2013). 大学生情绪及情绪智力对风险决策的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志, 21(6), 926-928.
[7]  周湛菁(2016). 性别、情绪效价和情绪唤醒度对风险决策的影响. 硕士学位论文, 长沙: 湖南师范大学.
[8]  左玉涵, 谢小云(2017). 组织行为领域情绪作用机制研究回顾与展望. 外国经济与管理, 39(8), 28-39.
[9]  Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to Future Consequences Following Damage to human Prefrontal Cortex. Cognition, 50, 7-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
[10]  Byrne, K., Willis, H., Peters, C., Kunkel, D., & Tibbett, T. (2020). Behind Closed Doors: The Role of Depressed Affect on Risky Choices under Time Pressure. Clinical Psychological Science, 8, 198-207.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619858423
[11]  Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A., & Damasio, A. (1994). The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient. Science, 264, 1102-1105.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8178168
[12]  Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The Effect of Positive Feelings on Risk Taking: When the Chips Are Down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 194-202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4
[13]  Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20
[14]  Justin, R., & Daniel, T. (2017). Sex Differences in the Functional Lateralization of Emotion and Decision Making in the Human Brain. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95, 270-278.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23829
[15]  León, J. J., Sánchez-Kuhn, A., Fernández-Martín, P., Páez-Pérez, M. A., & Flores, P. (2020). Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improves Risky Decision Making in Women but Not in Men: A Sham-Controlled Study. Behavioural Brain Research, 382, Article ID: 112485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112485
[16]  Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Influences on Judgement and Choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763
[17]  Li, Y., Rui, C., Zhang, S., Turel, O., & He, Q. (2018). Hemispheric MPFC Asymmetry in Decision Making under Ambiguity and Risk: An FNIRS Study. Behavioural Brain Research, 359, 657-663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.09.021
[18]  Peng, J., Xiao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S. J., & Miao, D. (2013). The Impact of Trait Anxiety on Self-Frame and Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 11-19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1783
[19]  Rosness, R. (2009). A Contingency Model of Decision-Making Involving Risk of Accidental Loss. Safety Science, 47, 807-812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.015
[20]  Singh, V., Chaudhary, K., Kumaran, S.S., Chandra, S., & Tripathi, M. (2020). Functional Cerebral Specialization for Decision Making in the Iowa Gambling Task: A Single-Case Study of Left-Hemispheric Atrophy and Hemispherotomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 725.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00725
[21]  Van den Bos, R., Homberg, J., & de Visser, L. (2013). A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Decision-Making Tasks: Focus on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behavioural Brain Research, 238, 95-108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.002
[22]  Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Society Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
[23]  Zhao, D., Gu, R., Tang, P., Yang, Q., & Luo, Y. J. (2016). Incidental Emotions Influence Risk Preference and Outcome Evaluation. Psychophysiology, 53, 1542-1551.
https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12694

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133