基于情感体验和人格特质的风险决策对比研究

北京邮电大学学报(社科版) ›› 2017, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (2): 85-91.

基于情感体验和人格特质的风险决策对比研究

1北京邮电大学经济管理学院，北京100876；2上海外国语大学国际工商管理学院，上海200083

收稿日期:2017-02-13 出版日期:2017-04-30
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目(71671115)；新世纪优秀人才支持计划资助（NCET-13-0685）；上海高校特聘教授(东方学者)岗位计划资助（TP2015031）

Comparative Study on Risk Decision Making Based on Emotional #br# Experience and Personality Traits

1. School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing
100876, China; 2. School of Business and Management, Shanghai International Studies University,
Shanghai 200083, China

Received:2017-02-13 Online:2017-04-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 首次研究了轮流决策模式，并将其与个人决策进行了对比，目的是研究风险情况对于个人风险决策和两人风险决策的差异性及影响因素。通过仿真气球实验（BART）将感觉寻求与情感体验相结合，对个人决策与轮流决策风险偏好、情感体验差异以及不同人格特质对风险偏好的影响分别进行研究。结果表明：轮流决策相对于个人决策可以明显降低风险。同时，轮流决策会给被试带来更强的控制感、成就感和喜悦感，较低的后悔程度。两个高感觉寻求被试组合和两个低感觉寻求被试的组合风险状况无显著差异，一个高感觉寻求和一个低感觉寻求被试的组合的风险状况显著低于两个低感觉寻求被试组合和两个高感觉寻求被试组合。研究结论对两人决策现有研究进行了有力补充。为企业进行组织架构设计、管理人员选择与搭配提供了可借鉴的理论基础。

关键词: , 个人决策, 轮流决策, 情感体验, 感觉寻求, BART

Abstract: Alternative decision making is first studied, and it is compared with individual decision making The purpose is to research the differences between individual and alternative decision making and the reasons By combining the sensation seeking and the emotional experience scales through the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), individual and alternative decision making are studied The results show that person′s risk preference is lower in alternative decision making than that in individual decision making Alternative decision making could bring more sense of control, achievement, happiness and less sense of regret In two person′s combination, two high-risk-seeking individuals′ risk preference has no significant difference from that of two low-risk-seeking individuals The risk preference of low-high individuals′ combination is the lowest among these three combinations The research could provide more decision models when enterprise facing risk decision making It has theoretical and practical contributions to the enterprise organization structure design and management

Key words: individual decision making, alternative decision making, emotional experience, sensation seeking, BART

中图分类号:

C934

王欣1,徐四华2，陈雨凡1，潘煜2，吕廷杰1，隋雨佳1. 基于情感体验和人格特质的风险决策对比研究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2017, 19(2): 85-91.

WANG Xin1，XU Si-hua2, CHEN Yu-fan1, PAN Yu2, L Ting-jie1, SUI Yu-jia1. Comparative Study on Risk Decision Making Based on Emotional #br# Experience and Personality Traits[J]. JOURNAL OF BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF POSTS AND TELECOM, 2017, 19(2): 85-91.

参考文献

［1］朱佳俊, 郑建国. 群决策理论、方法及其应用研究的综述与展望［J］. 管理学报, 2009, 6(8): 1131-1136.
［2］丛艳, 朱永杰. 群体决策理论研究述评［J］. 经济师, 2007(2): 37-39.
［3］ Palmon O, Wald J K. Are two heads better than one? The impact of changes in management structure on performance by firm size［J］. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2002, 8(3): 213-226.
［4］ Tauer L W. Are two heads better than one head in managing the family business［J］. Applied Economics Letters, 2014, 21(14): 960-964.
［5］ Rao H, Korczykowsk M, Pluta J. Neural correlates of voluntary and involuntary risk taking in the human brain: An fMRI study of the balloon analog risk task (BART)［J］. Neuroimage, 2008, 42 (2): 902–910.
［6］ Sarin R K, Weber M. Effects of ambiguity in market experiments［J］. Management Science, 1993, 39(5): 602-615.
［7］ Shupp R S, Williams A W. Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals［J］. The Economic Journal, 2008, 118(525): 258–283.
［8］ Masclet D, Colombier N, Denant-Boemont L, et al. Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers［J］. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2009, 70(3): 470-484.
［9］ Sniezek J A, Henry R A. Accuracy and confidence in group judgment［J］. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 1989, 43(1): 1-28.
［10］ Miner J B. The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science［J］. Academy of Management Review, 1984, 9(2): 296-306.
［11］ Neumann V J. Les fondements mathématiques de la mécanique quantique［J］. Les Fondements Mathématiques de la Mécanique Quantique, 1947(12): 103-104.
［12］ Simon H A. Administrative behavior : A study of decision making processes in administrative organizations: with a new introduction［M］. New York： The Macmillan Company. 1961.
［13］ Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the interpretation of intuitive probability: A reply to jonathan cohen［J］. Cognition, 1979, 7(4): 409-411.
［14］ Bell D E. Regret in decision making under uncertainty［J］. Operations Research, 1982, 30 (5): 961- 981.
［15］ Lerner J S, Li Y, Valdesolo P, et al. Emotion and decision making［J］. Annual Review of Psychology, 2015, 66(1): 799-823.
［16］ Yen N, Cherles N N. Risk aversion and decision［J］. Pacific Economic Review, 2014, 19(3): 296-312.
［17］ Lerner J S, Keltner D. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice［J］. Cognition and Emotion, 2000, 14(4): 473-493.
［18］徐四华, 方卓, 饶恒毅. 真实和虚拟金钱奖赏影响风险决策行为［J］. 心理学报, 2013, 45(8): 874- 886.
［19］ Aklin W M, Lejuez C W, Zvolensky M J, et al. Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner city adolescents［J］. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 2005, 43(2): 215-228.
［20］ Fernie G, Cole J C, Goudie A J, et al. Risk-taking but not response inhibition or delay discounting predict alcohol consumption in social drinkers［J］. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 2010, 112(1-2): 54-61.
［21］ Hopko D, Lejuez C, Daughters S, et al. Construct validity of the balloon analogue risk task (BART): Relationship with mdma use by inner-city drug users in residential treatment［J］. Personal Relationships, 2015, 22(2): 275-284.
［22］ Finger B, Weber E U. Personality and risk taking［J］. International Encyclopedia of the social & Behavioral Science, 2001: 809-813.
［23］ Paydary K, Torabi S M, SeyedAlinaghi S. Impulsivity, sensation seeking, and risk-taking behaviors among HIV-positive and HIV-negative heroin dependent persons［J］. Aids Research & Treatment, 2016(3): 1-8.
［24］ Amirfakhraei A, Taghinejad N, Sadeghifar E. Relationship between risky driving behavior and sensation–Seeking and sex among students of islamic azad university–Bandar Abbas, Iran, in 2012［J］. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2013: 3(3)293-301.
［25］ Young L, Durwin A J. Moral realism as moral motivation: The impact of meta-ethics on everyday decision-making［J］. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013, 49(2): 302-306.

[1]	田祖海, 吴雅静. 自由贸易协定对中国制造业出口的影响研究：基于“一带一路”沿线国家数[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(4): 17-26.
[2]	刘树林, 张晟嘉. 营商环境评价体系的构建与研究——基于熵权TOPSIS法[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(4): 27-36.
[3]	齐佳音, 胡帅波, 张亚, . 人工智能聊天机器人在数字营销中的应用：文献综述[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(4): 59-70.
[4]	胡桃, 郑君臣. 高校电子商务专业核心课程教学评价体系探究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(4): 103-111.
[5]	黄逸珺，靳晓晶，李琳. 欠发达地区义务教育应用MOOC的学习意愿影响因素研究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2020, 22(1): 87-97.
[6]	熊莺,徐静,李颖臻. null[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(6): 1-10.
[7]	魏龙，杨晖. 服务外包对中国制造业出口复杂度影响的研究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(6): 46-57.
[8]	彭若弘，苏玉苗. 创新补贴、税收优惠与高新技术产业研发产出[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(6): 77-89.
[9]	张爱华，陈超雨. 基于文本分析的中国5G产业发展研究——市场主体视角[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(6): 90-102.
[10]	徐俊杰，吴敏. 快递自取点服务质量量表的开发与验证[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(6): 103-111.
[11]	陈慧1，杨翠莹1，张涵2. 情绪视角下员工越轨创新行为研究：越轨钦佩的调节作用[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(5): 75-84.
[12]	傅魁，覃桂双. 基于Nutch的多源社交媒体情报采集系统[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(5): 85-92.
[13]	石川，马铭君，胡琳梅. 基于用户心理的网络舆情指标体系构建研究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(5): 93-99.
[14]	杨天剑，左欣. 电信供应链的采购期权契约设计与协调机制研究[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(3): 10-15.
[15]	孙湘湘，周小亮. 风险投资的地区差异及其影响因素——以广东省为例[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社科版), 2019, 21(3): 25-32.