两人风险决策研究：从人格特质与脑神经的视角

发布时间：2018-06-10 12:27

本文选题：两人决策 + 人格特质　；参考：《北京邮电大学》2017年博士论文

【摘要】：在企业风险背景下,人们对于个人决策、轮流决策和共同决策的主观偏好如何?在实际风险决策情境下,人们的风险偏好、收益、情绪体验是否有差异?个人风险决策是否和感觉寻求相关?在轮流决策和共同决策中,不同感觉寻求组合的被试的风险偏好及收益是否有差异?本研究针对以上问题,结合管理学相关决策理论和心理学人格特质理论、认知神经科学相关研究方法,通过仿真冒险任务、感觉寻求量表、情感体验、ERP脑电实验相结合的方式,对于个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策进行了系统研究。首先,本文通过企业风险问题相关问卷研究发现,人们最倾向于选择共同决策,其次是个人决策,最不倾向于选择轮流决策。其次,通过行为学实验发现,个人决策的风险偏好大于轮流决策和共同决策。个人决策的收益小于轮流决策和共同决策。再次,在情感体验方面,个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策的成就感无差异;个人决策的控制感体验小于轮流决策和共同决策的控制感体验,轮流决策和共同决策的控制感无差异。个人决策喜悦感小于共同决策的喜悦感。然而,个人决策与轮流决策时的喜悦感、轮流决策与共同决策时的喜悦感没有显著性差异。个人决策的后悔感程度要高于共同决策时的后悔感,但个人决策的后悔感和轮流决策的后悔感,轮流决策的后悔感和共同决策的后悔感无显著差异。接下来,按感觉寻求总分分组,低低组合中,轮流决策时被试的风险偏好最低,其收益最高;共同决策的风险偏好虽然不显著低于个人决策,但均值仍低于个人,且收益高于个人。在一高一低感觉寻求总分组合中,低感觉寻求被试的风险偏好在个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策模式下无差异;轮流决策、共同决策的收益均高于个人决策收益。高感觉寻求被试的风险偏好在个人决策高于轮流决策;轮流决策、共同决策的收益均高于个人决策收益。两名高感觉寻求总分组合中,个人决策、共同决策的风险偏好均高于轮流决策;轮流决策、共同决策的收益均高于个人决策收益。按放纵欲望分数分组,两名低放纵欲望组合中,个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策的风险偏好无差异;轮流决策、共同决策的收益均高于个人决策收益。一高一低两名放纵欲望被试组合中,个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策的风险偏好无差异;共同决策高于轮流决策的收益,轮流决策高于个人决策收益。高感觉寻求被试的个人决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策收益高于个人决策和轮流决策收益。两名高放纵欲望被试组合中,被试的个人决策风险偏好高于共同决策,共同决策高于轮流决策;共同决策、轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。按危险与冒险分组,两名低危险与冒险组合中,个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策的风险偏好无差异;轮流决策高于个人决策收益。低分被试在一高一低危险与冒险分数被试组合中,个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策的风险偏好无差异;轮流决策、共同决策收益高于个人决策收益。一高一低两名危险与冒险被试组合中,高分数被试的个人决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策和轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。两名高危险与冒险被试组合中,被试的个人决策和共同决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策和轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。按不甘寂寞分组,两名低不甘寂寞被试组合中,被试的个人决策、轮流决策、共同决策风险偏好无显著差异;共同决策和轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。一高一低两名不甘寂寞被试组合中,低分数被试的个人决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策和轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。一高一低两名不甘寂寞被试组合中,高分数被试的个人决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策和轮流决策收益高于个人决策收益。两名高不甘寂寞被试组合中,被试的个人决策风险偏好高于轮流决策;共同决策收益高于个人决策收益。按经历寻求分组,两名低经历寻求被试组合中,被试的风险偏好无显著差异;轮流决策、共同决策收益均高于个人决策收益。在一高一低经历寻求被试组合中,低分数被试轮流决策的风险偏低于个人决策风险偏好;轮流决策、共同决策收益均高于个人决策收益。在一高一低经历寻求被试组合中,高分数被试轮流决策的风险偏低于个人决策风险偏好;轮流决策、共同决策收益均高于个人决策收益。在两名高经历寻求被试组合中,被试轮流决策的风险偏低于个人决策风险偏好;轮流决策、共同决策收益均高于个人决策收益。综合来说,轮流决策、共同决策均优于个人决策。按感觉寻求总分分组,轮流决策中高高组合风险偏好大于高低组合、低低组合。收益方面无显著差异。共同决策中低低组合、低高组合风险偏好低于高高组合。低低组合、低高组合收益低于高高组合。按危险与冒险分数分组,轮流决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好及收益均无差异。共同决策中低低组合低于低高组合风险偏好,低低、低高组合收益均小于高高组合收益。按经历寻求分组,轮流决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好及收益均无差异。共同决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好均无差异。低低组合的收益显著低于低高组合。按放纵欲望分组,轮流决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好均无差异。低高组合的收益显著低于高高组合。共同决策中低低组合、低高组合风险偏好显著低于高高组合。低低组合的收益显著低于低高组合。按不甘寂寞分组,轮流决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好及收益均无显著差异。共同决策中低低组合、低高组合、高高组合风险偏好及收益均无显著差异。最后,在脑电研究方面,轮流“存存”和个人“存存”的差值(ASS-ISS)与轮流主动决策与轮流被动决策的P300差异(AAP-APP)正相关。共同“存”与个人“存”(JS-IS)与共同主动决策与共同被动决策的FRN差异(JAF-JPF)相关性边缘显著。共同“爆存”和个人“爆存”的差值(JPS-IPS)与共同主动决策与共同被动决策的P300差异(JAP-JPP)相关性边缘显著。轮流主动决策与轮流被动决策的FRN差异值(AAF-APF)和轮流控制感与个人控制感差值正相关。轮流主动决策与个人主动决策P300差异值(AAP-IAP)和轮流控制感与个人控制感差值正相关。轮流被动决策与个人主动决策FRN差异值(AAF-IAF)分别和轮流控制感与个人控制感差值、轮流后悔感与个人后悔感差值正相关。轮流被动决策与个人主动决策FRN差异值(APF-IAF)和轮流成就感与个人成就感差值正相关。共同主动决策与共同被动决策的P300差异值(JAP-JPP)和共同控制感与个人控制感差值正相关。共同主动决策与共同被动决策的FRN差异值(JAF-JPF)和共同后悔感与个人后悔感差值正相关。共同被动决策与个人主动决策的FRN差异值(JPF-IPF)和共同后悔感与个人后悔感差值正相关。共同主动决策与共同被动决策的P300差异值(JAP-JPP)和共同成就感与个人成就感差值相关性边缘显著。轮流主动决策与个人主动决策P300差异值(AAP-IAP)和寻求危险与冒险(TAS)正相关。共同主动决策与共同被动决策FRN差异值(JAF-JPF)和寻求寻求经历(ES)边缘负相关。共同主动决策与共同被动P300差异值(AAP-APP)和不甘寂寞(BS)边缘负相关。因此在公司组织架构设置方面,总体上我们建议采用两名决策者的架构。但应考虑两名决策者的风险寻求人格特质的差异及组合。本文创新点主要包括研究目的、研究内容、研究方法三方面的创新。结合其他学科领域关于轮流的研究,本研究首次定义并研究了轮流决策;通过对个人决策和群体决策优劣的比较,本研究首次对两人决策进行了系统研究。情绪是决策双系统理论中的一个因素,前人的研究也多局限于个人决策研究中,本研究第一次研究了在轮流决策和共同决策中的情绪体验,以及与个人决策情绪体验的差异。感觉寻求是研究较多的人格特质,但之前研究都是针对个人决策而言。本研究中将两人感觉寻求的组合作为研究对象,分析了在轮流决策和共同决策模式下,不同人格特质组合对于风险偏好及收益的影响。本研究将心理学风险模拟任务BART第一次应用在管理领域的研究中。同时,将行为学实验和量表相结合,实现了跨学科研究。本研究首次将ERP脑电实验研究用于双人决策相关研究中,为个人决策、轮流决策和共同决策的风险偏好、情感体验、人格特质的相关性提供了科学依据。
[Abstract]:In the context of enterprise risk, what are the subjective preferences of individual decision making, rotation decision and common decision? Are there any differences in risk preference, income, emotional experience in the actual risk decision-making situation? Is personal risk decision related to feeling seeking? In a round decision and joint decision, a combination of different senses is sought. Whether there is a difference in risk preference and income, this study, in view of the above problems, combines management related decision-making theory and psychological personality trait theory, cognitive neuroscience related research methods, through the simulation of adventure task, sensation seeking scale, emotional experience, ERP EEG testing, for individual decision-making, rotation decision-making, In this paper, a systematic study of decision making is carried out. First, through the study of the questionnaire of enterprise risk, it is found that people are most inclined to choose common decision, second is personal decision, and the least inclined to choose rotation decision. Secondly, through behavioral experiment, the risk preference of individual decision is greater than that of rotation decision and joint decision. The income is less than the rotation decision and the common decision. Thirdly, there is no difference in the sense of achievement in the emotional experience, the individual decision, the rotation decision, the common decision, the control feeling of the individual decision-making is less than the control experience of the rotation decision and the common decision, and the control sense of the rotation decision and the common decision is not different. The joy of individual decision making is less than the common decision making. However, there is no significant difference in the joy of individual decision making and decision making, and there is no significant difference in the joy of the decision making and the common decision. The regret of individual decision is higher than that of the common decision, but the regret of the individual decision and the regrets of the decision making, the regrets of the rotation decision and the regrets of the common decision. There is no significant difference in feeling. Next, the total score group is sought according to the feeling. In the low low combination, the risk preference of the participants in the rotation decision is the lowest and the highest income. Although the risk preference of the common decision is not significantly lower than the individual decision, the average value is still lower than the individual and the income is higher than that of the individual. The risk preference of the subjects is in personal decision making, rotation decision, and common decision model. The profit of the rotation decision and the common decision is higher than that of the individual decision. The risk preference of the high sensation seeking is higher than the decision making in the individual decision; the profit of the rotation decision and the common decision is higher than that of the individual decision. Two high senses seek the total. In the combination, the risk preference of individual decision and common decision is higher than that of rotation decision. The profit of rotation decision and common decision is higher than that of individual decision. In the combination of lust score, two low indulgence desire combination, personal decision making, rotation decision, and common decision risk preference are not different. In the individual decision income, the individual decision, the rotation decision, and the risk preference of the common decision are not different in the one high and low two lust group. The common decision is higher than the income of the rotation decision. The rotation decision is higher than the individual decision income. The high feeling seeking individual decision risk preference is higher than the rotation decision; the common decision income is higher than that of the individual decision. Individual decision and rotation decision income. In the two high indulgent desire group, the individual decision risk preference of the subjects is higher than the common decision making, the common decision is higher than the rotation decision; the common decision making, the rotation decision income is higher than the individual decision income. According to the risk and risk grouping, the two low risk and risk combination, the individual decision, the rotation decision, the total decision, The risk preference of the same decision is not different, and the rotation decision is higher than the individual decision income. The low score group has no difference in the risk preference of the individual decision, the rotation decision and the common decision in the combination of the one high and the low risk and the risk score, and the rotation decision, the profit of the joint decision is higher than that of the individual decision. The combination of two dangerous and risky subjects is one high and one lower. The individual decision risk preference of the high grade subjects is higher than that of the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision income. In the two high risk and risk subjects combination, the individual decision and the common decision risk preference of the subjects are higher than the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision-making returns. In the lonely group, in the group of two low and lonely subjects, the individual decision, rotation decision, and the risk preference of the common decision have no significant difference; the common decision and the rotation decision benefit are higher than the individual decision income. The individual decision risk preference of the low score two subjects is higher than the rotation decision; The income of policy and rotation decision is higher than that of individual decision. One high and one low two non lonely trial combination, the individual decision risk preference of high score subjects is higher than that of the rotation decision; the common decision and the rotation decision yield are higher than the individual decision income. In the two highly unwilling subjects, the individual decision risk preference of the subjects is higher than the rotation decision. The benefit of the common decision is higher than the individual decision income. The risk preference of the participants in the two low experience seeking group is no significant difference according to the experience seeking group. Policy risk preference, rotation decision-making, and common decision earnings are higher than individual decision-making returns. In the one high and low experience seeking group, the risk of high score trial rotation decision is lower than individual decision risk preference; rotation decision and common decision income are higher than individual decision gains. In the two high experience seeking group, the subjects take turns. The risk of decision making is lower than that of individual decision risk preference; rotation decision and common decision income are higher than individual decision-making returns. In general, rotation decision and common decision are superior to individual decision making. Combination of low and low portfolio, low portfolio risk preference is lower than high combination. Low combination, low high combination income is lower than high combination. According to risk and risk score group, low combination, low high combination, high combination risk preference and income are not different. Low, low, high portfolio income is less than high portfolio income. According to the experience of grouping, low portfolio, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference and income are not different. Group, low combination, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference. Low combination income is significantly lower than high combination. Low combination of low and low combination, low portfolio risk preference is significantly lower than high combination. Low low combination income is significantly lower than low high combination. There are no significant differences in combination, low high combination, high portfolio risk preference and income. There is no significant difference in risk preference and income of low and low combination, low high combination and high combination in common decision making. Finally, in the field of EEG research, the difference between "storage" and individual "deposit" (ASS-ISS) and the P30 of rotation active decision and rotation passive decision making The 0 difference (AAP-APP) is positive. The correlation between the common "storage" and the individual "JS-IS" and the FRN difference (JAF-JPF) of the common active decision and the common passive decision is significant. The difference between the common "explosion" and the individual "JPS-IPS" (JPS-IPS) is significantly on the edge of the P300 difference (JAP-JPP) of the common active decision and the common passive decision. The FRN difference value (AAF-APF) and the rotation control sense and the personal control sense difference are positive correlation between the active decision and the rotation passive decision. The P300 difference value (AAP-IAP) and the rotation control sense and the personal control sense difference are positive correlation between the active decision and the individual active decision, and the FRN difference value (AAF-IAF) and the wheel of the active decision and the individual initiative decision (AAF-IAF) are respectively and round. The difference between sense of control and personal control, rotation of regret and personal regret are positively correlated. The FRN difference (APF-IAF) and the difference value of rotation achievement and individual achievement are positively related to the difference value of individual achievement feeling and the difference value of P300 (JAP-JPP), common control sense and personal control sense of common active decision and common passive decision Positive correlation. The FRN difference (JAF-JPF) and common regrets are positively related to the difference of personal regret. The FRN difference (JPF-IPF) and the difference of common regret and personal regret are positively correlated with the difference between the common passive decision and the individual initiative decision. The difference of the P300 difference between the common active decision and the common passive decision is the difference between the common active decision and the common passive decision. Value (JAP-JPP) and common achievement sense and personal achievement sense difference correlation edge significant. Rotation active decision and individual active decision P300 difference value (AAP-IAP) and risk and Adventure (TAS) positive correlation. Common active decision and common passive decision FRN difference value (JAF-JPF) and search for experience (ES) edge negative correlation. Common active decision and The common passive P300 difference value (AAP-APP) and the edge of BS (BS) are negatively correlated. Therefore, in the organization structure of the company, we propose to adopt the framework of two decision-makers in general. But we should consider the differences and combinations of the personality traits of the two decision-makers. This new point mainly includes research purposes, research content, and research methods. Three aspects of innovation. Combined with the study of rotation in other disciplines, this study first defines and studies rotation decision-making. Through the comparison of individual decision-making and group decision making, this study is the first to make a systematic study of two people's decision-making. Emotion is a factor in the dual system theory of decision making, and the previous research is also limited to one. In the study of human decision-making, this study first studied the emotional experience in the rotation decision and the common decision, and the difference with the personal decision emotional experience. The effect of different personality trait combinations on risk preference and income is the first time to apply the psychological risk simulation task BART to the study of management. At the same time, the interdisciplinary study is realized by combining behavior experiments and scales. This study is the first time to study the ERP electroencephalogram experiment. This study provides a scientific basis for personal decision making, risk preference, emotional experience and personality traits in individual decision making.
【学位授予单位】：北京邮电大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B848;F272.3

【参考文献】