调节定向和框架类型对风险决策影响的ERP研究

发布时间：2018-07-29 09:52

【摘要】：背景风险决策是指个体在解决某一问题或事情时所面临含有多种概率明确选项的情境中,权衡不同选项的主观预期价值从而做出决策的过程;调节定向作为一种动机原则,不仅影响着人们的认知评价,也影响人们的决策判断;框架类型仍在风险决策中发挥着重要作用,而研究这三者之间的关系的研究则较少。基于此,本研究对不同调节定向的个体在不同框架下的风险决策的特点进行研究,并借助于事件相关电位技术探究其神经电生理机制。目的本研究旨在考察调节定向与框架类型影响风险决策的特点以及不同调节定向个体在任务完成中的神经电生理机制。方法实验一:通过调节定向问卷筛选符合实验条件者61人(促进27人,防御34人)。采用2(调节定向类型:防御定向、促进定向)×2(框架类型:正性框架、负性框架)×2(风险偏好:确定方案、风险方案)三因素混合实验设计。借助E-prime2.0编程呈现实验并记录反应数据。实验二:通过调节定向问卷筛选符合实验条件者30人(促进、防御各15人)。采用2(调节定向类型:促进定向、防御定向)×2(框架类型:正性框架,负性框架)×2(风险偏好:风险寻求、风险规避)×3(半球位置:左、中、右)四因素混合实验设计,借助E-prime2.0编程呈现刺激并运用Neuroscan脑电记录仪记录脑电波形。结果实验一结果:在反应时上,风险偏好的主效应显著,F(1,59)=27.612,P0.01,η2=0.319,框架类型、风险偏好与调节定向类型的交互作用显著,F(1,59)=4.439,P0.05,η2=0.070,未发现调节定向个体之间的差异。在反应次数上,风险偏好的主效应显著,F(1,59)=12.894,P0.01,η2=0.101;框架类型与风险偏好、调节定向的三阶交互作用显著,F(1,59)=7.168,P0.01,η2=0.108,进一步检验简单效应发现,在正性框架下,促进定向的个体选择风险寻求的次数显著多于防御定向的个体,F(1,59)=6.599,P0.05,η2=0.101,而风险规避的次数则相反,F(1,59)=7.445,P0.01,η2=0.112。实验二结果:前额叶的N1波幅:调节定向的主效应不显著,调节定向、框架类型与半球位置的交互作用显著,F(2,56)=4.467,P0.05,η2=0.138,即在负性框架下,促进定向的个体在左前额叶诱发的N1波幅显著低于防御定向的个体,F(1,28)=5.281,P0.05,η2=0.159。额叶的N1波幅:调节定向的主效应不显著,F(1,28)=3.020,P0.05,η2=0.097,调节定向、框架类型与半球位置的交互作用显著,F(2,56)=3.521,P0.05,η2=0.112,即在负性框架下,防御定向在左半球诱发的N1波幅强度高于促进定向,F(1,28)=5.281,P0.05,η2=0.159。调节定向、风险偏好与半球位置的交互作用显著,F(2,56)=3.166,P=0.050,η2=0.102,即在左半球,防御定向选择风险方案时诱发的N1波幅强度高于促进定向个体诱发的,F(1,28)=4.233,P0.05,η2=0.131。后顶区的P3波幅:调节定向的主效应显著,F(1,28)=6.352,P0.05,η2=0.185,促进定向个体的P3波幅低于防御定向。结论(1)调节定向、框架类型和风险偏好共同影响风险决策。(2)在信息加工初始阶段,调节定向与框架类型、风险偏好共同影响风险决策的。(3)在信息深度加工阶段,调节定向影响风险决策,同时,这种影响还体现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.
【学位授予单位】：新乡医学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B842

【参考文献】