Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-02-17DOI: 10.1037/rev0000529
Shlomi Sher, Johannes Müller-Trede, Craig R M McKenzie
Traditional models of rational choice assume that preferences are complete, but the completeness axiom is neither normatively compelling nor psychologically plausible. Building on recent work in economics, we develop a rational analysis of decision making with incomplete preferences. The analysis sheds surprising light on a range of well-known behavioral "anomalies," including the endowment effect, status quo maintenance, the sunk cost effect, and coherent arbitrariness. We propose a two-part division of rational choice theory-into preference theory and "implementation theory"-and show how conservative and coherently arbitrary policies can effectively implement incomplete preferences. The two-part normative framework motivates a psychological distinction between evaluation and implementation phases in decision making. We argue that the endowment effect and related phenomena, which have usually been attributed to loss aversion in the evaluation phase, are better explained by conservatism in the implementation phase. The rational analysis challenges the normative adequacy of expected utility theory and raises questions about the explanatory scope of prospect theory. It illustrates the rich interplay between psychological models of value structure and normative models of rational choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
传统的理性选择模型假定偏好是完整的，但完整性公理既不符合规范，也不符合心理学原理。在经济学最新研究的基础上，我们对不完全偏好下的决策进行了理性分析。该分析揭示了一系列众所周知的行为 "反常现象"，包括禀赋效应、维持现状、沉没成本效应和连贯的任意性。我们提出了理性选择理论的两部分划分--偏好理论和 "实施理论"--并展示了保守和连贯武断的政策如何有效地实施不完全偏好。由两部分组成的规范性框架促使我们从心理学角度对决策中的评估阶段和执行阶段进行区分。我们认为，禀赋效应和相关现象通常被归因于评估阶段的损失厌恶，而实施阶段的保守主义可以更好地解释这些现象。理性分析对预期效用理论的规范适当性提出了质疑，并对前景理论的解释范围提出了疑问。它说明了价值结构的心理学模型与理性选择的规范模型之间丰富的相互作用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, 版权所有）。
{"title":"Choices without preferences: Principles of rational arbitrariness.","authors":"Shlomi Sher, Johannes Müller-Trede, Craig R M McKenzie","doi":"10.1037/rev0000529","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000529","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional models of rational choice assume that preferences are complete, but the completeness axiom is neither normatively compelling nor psychologically plausible. Building on recent work in economics, we develop a rational analysis of decision making with incomplete preferences. The analysis sheds surprising light on a range of well-known behavioral \"anomalies,\" including the endowment effect, status quo maintenance, the sunk cost effect, and coherent arbitrariness. We propose a two-part division of rational choice theory-into preference theory and \"implementation theory\"-and show how conservative and coherently arbitrary policies can effectively implement incomplete preferences. The two-part normative framework motivates a psychological distinction between evaluation and implementation phases in decision making. We argue that the endowment effect and related phenomena, which have usually been attributed to loss aversion in the evaluation phase, are better explained by conservatism in the implementation phase. The rational analysis challenges the normative adequacy of expected utility theory and raises questions about the explanatory scope of prospect theory. It illustrates the rich interplay between psychological models of value structure and normative models of rational choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1375-1395"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143441931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Within-Alternative Processing Supports Transitivity of Preferences in Multiattribute Choice","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/rev0000587.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000587.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"149 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jesse Boot, Maarten W. J. van den Ende, Reinout W. Wiers, Mike H. Lees, Han L. J. van der Maas
{"title":"Integrating dual-process decision making and social dynamics: A formal modeling framework for addiction.","authors":"Jesse Boot, Maarten W. J. van den Ende, Reinout W. Wiers, Mike H. Lees, Han L. J. van der Maas","doi":"10.1037/rev0000584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000584","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A metatheory of classical and modern connectionism.","authors":"Olivia Guest, Andrea E. Martin","doi":"10.1037/rev0000591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000591","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145295079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Because the study of working memory and long-term memory diverged decades ago, views about the diagnostic nature of certain measures within each literature might not be valid. For example, in the study of working memory, it is viewed as critical to show a capacity limit in storage as a way of demonstrating that one is measuring the limited-capacity working memory store and not the unlimited capacity long-term memory store. Although this is a strong logical structure, these hallmarks of working memory might already fall out of existing models of human long-term memory. Here, we show that several of the set size effects often used to validate the assumption that one is studying working memory are also observed as a natural result of the dynamics of contextual models of long-term memory storage and retrieval. Integrating contextual dynamics into a model of visual working memory provides new insight into the nature of interference in short-term visual memory tasks and allows the model to capture the temporal structure of visual experience as it unfolds in time. We discuss how the situation motivates a re-examination of unified models of human memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
由于对工作记忆和长期记忆的研究在几十年前就出现了分歧，所以关于每一篇文献中某些测量方法的诊断性质的观点可能并不有效。例如，在工作记忆的研究中，显示存储的容量限制被认为是至关重要的，这是一种证明人们测量的是有限容量的工作记忆存储，而不是无限容量的长期记忆存储的方式。虽然这是一个强大的逻辑结构，但这些工作记忆的特征可能已经脱离了现有的人类长期记忆模型。在这里，我们展示了通常用来验证一个人正在研究工作记忆的假设的几个集合大小效应，也被观察到作为长期记忆存储和检索的上下文模型动态的自然结果。将上下文动力学整合到视觉工作记忆模型中，为短期视觉记忆任务的干扰性质提供了新的见解，并允许模型捕捉视觉经验的时间结构，因为它在时间上展开。我们讨论了这种情况如何促使人们重新审视人类记忆的统一模型。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Capacity not required: A long-term memory model that exhibits key signatures of working memory.","authors":"Sean M Polyn,Geoffrey F Woodman","doi":"10.1037/rev0000588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000588","url":null,"abstract":"Because the study of working memory and long-term memory diverged decades ago, views about the diagnostic nature of certain measures within each literature might not be valid. For example, in the study of working memory, it is viewed as critical to show a capacity limit in storage as a way of demonstrating that one is measuring the limited-capacity working memory store and not the unlimited capacity long-term memory store. Although this is a strong logical structure, these hallmarks of working memory might already fall out of existing models of human long-term memory. Here, we show that several of the set size effects often used to validate the assumption that one is studying working memory are also observed as a natural result of the dynamics of contextual models of long-term memory storage and retrieval. Integrating contextual dynamics into a model of visual working memory provides new insight into the nature of interference in short-term visual memory tasks and allows the model to capture the temporal structure of visual experience as it unfolds in time. We discuss how the situation motivates a re-examination of unified models of human memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"32 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145254845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Max Wolff,Hans Rutrecht,Lea J Mertens,Andy A Meijer,Jessica Beck,Sergio Pérez,Gerhard Gründer,Isabel Dziobek,Henrik Jungaberle
Psychedelic therapy is commonly understood as a form of psychotherapy. However, despite promising results from clinical trials, scientific progress has been hindered by a lack of theoretical integration between the fields of psychedelic and psychotherapy research. This article seeks to bridge this divide by outlining a transtheoretical understanding of psychedelic-occasioned psychological change based on Klaus Grawe's model of general change mechanisms-an empirically grounded framework of psychotherapeutic "common factors" that emphasizes therapeutic experiences and change processes. Drawing on extensive evidence from psychedelic research, we argue that the efficacy of psychedelic therapy is ultimately mediated by the same five general change mechanisms that underlie all effective psychotherapies: (1) resource activation, (2) therapeutic relationship, (3) problem actuation, (4) clarification, and (5) mastery. Implications for clinical practice, training, and future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
迷幻疗法通常被理解为心理治疗的一种形式。然而，尽管临床试验取得了令人鼓舞的结果，但由于迷幻药和心理治疗研究领域之间缺乏理论整合，科学进步一直受到阻碍。本文试图通过概述对迷幻引起的心理变化的跨理论理解来弥合这一分歧，该理解基于克劳斯·格劳的一般变化机制模型——一个以经验为基础的心理治疗“共同因素”框架，强调治疗经验和变化过程。根据迷幻药研究的大量证据，我们认为迷幻药治疗的效果最终是由构成所有有效心理治疗基础的相同的五种一般变化机制介导的：(1)资源激活，(2)治疗关系，(3)问题驱动，(4)澄清，(5)掌握。对临床实践、培训和未来研究的意义进行了讨论。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Common factors in altered states: Understanding psychedelic therapy through the lens of Grawe's general change mechanisms.","authors":"Max Wolff,Hans Rutrecht,Lea J Mertens,Andy A Meijer,Jessica Beck,Sergio Pérez,Gerhard Gründer,Isabel Dziobek,Henrik Jungaberle","doi":"10.1037/rev0000589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000589","url":null,"abstract":"Psychedelic therapy is commonly understood as a form of psychotherapy. However, despite promising results from clinical trials, scientific progress has been hindered by a lack of theoretical integration between the fields of psychedelic and psychotherapy research. This article seeks to bridge this divide by outlining a transtheoretical understanding of psychedelic-occasioned psychological change based on Klaus Grawe's model of general change mechanisms-an empirically grounded framework of psychotherapeutic \"common factors\" that emphasizes therapeutic experiences and change processes. Drawing on extensive evidence from psychedelic research, we argue that the efficacy of psychedelic therapy is ultimately mediated by the same five general change mechanisms that underlie all effective psychotherapies: (1) resource activation, (2) therapeutic relationship, (3) problem actuation, (4) clarification, and (5) mastery. Implications for clinical practice, training, and future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145254843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding how people assign subjective value to outcomes with multiple attributes, such as risk and delay, is central to understanding the structure and manifestation of economic preferences. However, multiattribute preference has been primarily studied through binary choices. The price at which a person would buy, sell, or equate each prospect offers another measure of subjective value that may diverge from multiattribute choice. In both risky and intertemporal domains, choice and price preferences exhibit systematic preference reversals, where a smaller, sooner, or safer option is chosen while a larger, later, or riskier alternative is assigned a higher price. The present study takes a deep dive into how subjective value is assigned in each case in an attempt to reconcile these diverging measurements and methods of assessing value. To explain how and why preferences change across choice and price, the domains of gains and losses, price frames of buying and selling, and varying levels of time pressure, we develop a two-step neural network-based modeling approach. First, we tested cognitive mechanisms underlying value-based judgments and decisions using a switchboard model comparison. Next, we fit and evaluated individualized joint models, where all data from an individual are modeled using parameters and mechanisms that are specific to their best fitting model structure. While mechanisms like delay discounting and risk aversion are common to both models, our results suggest that anchoring and payoff sensitivity diverged between pricing and choice. Extensive differences across elicitation procedures indicate that a common representation of value may remain elusive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
理解人们如何为具有多重属性的结果（如风险和延迟）赋予主观价值，对于理解经济偏好的结构和表现形式至关重要。然而，多属性偏好主要是通过二元选择来研究的。一个人购买、出售或等同每个潜在客户的价格提供了另一种主观价值衡量标准，可能与多属性选择不同。在风险和跨期领域，选择和价格偏好都表现出系统性的偏好逆转，即选择较小、较早或较安全的选择，而较大、较晚或较有风险的选择被赋予较高的价格。本研究深入探讨了如何在每个情况下分配主观价值，试图调和这些不同的测量和评估价值的方法。为了解释偏好如何以及为什么在选择和价格、收益和损失领域、买卖价格框架以及不同水平的时间压力中发生变化，我们开发了一种基于神经网络的两步建模方法。首先，我们使用总机模型比较测试了基于价值的判断和决策的认知机制。接下来，我们拟合和评估个性化的关节模型，其中来自个体的所有数据都使用特定于其最佳拟合模型结构的参数和机制进行建模。虽然延迟贴现和风险规避等机制在两种模型中都是共同的，但我们的研究结果表明，锚定和支付敏感性在定价和选择之间存在分歧。启发程序之间的广泛差异表明，价值的共同表示可能仍然难以捉摸。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Cognitive mechanisms of subjective value in multiattribute pricing.","authors":"Anderson K Fitch,Peter D Kvam","doi":"10.1037/rev0000594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000594","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding how people assign subjective value to outcomes with multiple attributes, such as risk and delay, is central to understanding the structure and manifestation of economic preferences. However, multiattribute preference has been primarily studied through binary choices. The price at which a person would buy, sell, or equate each prospect offers another measure of subjective value that may diverge from multiattribute choice. In both risky and intertemporal domains, choice and price preferences exhibit systematic preference reversals, where a smaller, sooner, or safer option is chosen while a larger, later, or riskier alternative is assigned a higher price. The present study takes a deep dive into how subjective value is assigned in each case in an attempt to reconcile these diverging measurements and methods of assessing value. To explain how and why preferences change across choice and price, the domains of gains and losses, price frames of buying and selling, and varying levels of time pressure, we develop a two-step neural network-based modeling approach. First, we tested cognitive mechanisms underlying value-based judgments and decisions using a switchboard model comparison. Next, we fit and evaluated individualized joint models, where all data from an individual are modeled using parameters and mechanisms that are specific to their best fitting model structure. While mechanisms like delay discounting and risk aversion are common to both models, our results suggest that anchoring and payoff sensitivity diverged between pricing and choice. Extensive differences across elicitation procedures indicate that a common representation of value may remain elusive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145254842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Cognitive Mechanisms of Subjective Value in Multiattribute Pricing","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/rev0000594.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000594.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145254634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-01Epub Date: 2024-09-23DOI: 10.1037/rev0000503
Samuel A W Klein, Jeffrey W Sherman
Forming impressions of others is a fundamental aspect of social life. These impressions necessitate the integration of many and varied sources of information about other people, including social group memberships, apparent personality traits, inferences from observed behaviors, and so forth. However, methodological limitations have hampered progress in understanding this integration process. In particular, extant approaches have been unable to measure the independent contributions of multiple features to a given impression. In this article, after describing these limitations and their constraints on theory testing and development, we present a multinomial processing tree model as a computational solution to the problem. Specifically, the model distinguishes the contributions of multiple cues to social judgment. We describe an empirical demonstration of how applying the model can resolve long-standing debates among person perception researchers. Finally, we survey a variety of questions to which this approach can be profitably applied. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
形成对他人的印象是社会生活的一个基本方面。这些印象的形成需要整合许多不同来源的有关他人的信息，包括社会群体成员身份、明显的个性特征、观察到的行为推断等。然而，方法上的局限性阻碍了对这一整合过程的理解。特别是，现有的方法无法测量多个特征对特定印象的独立贡献。在本文中，我们在阐述了这些局限性及其对理论测试和发展的制约之后，提出了一种多叉处理树模型作为该问题的计算解决方案。具体来说，该模型区分了多种线索对社会判断的贡献。我们描述了应用该模型如何解决人的感知研究人员之间长期争论的实证演示。最后，我们探讨了这一方法可用于解决的各种问题。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
{"title":"Measuring the impact of multiple social cues to advance theory in person perception research.","authors":"Samuel A W Klein, Jeffrey W Sherman","doi":"10.1037/rev0000503","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000503","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forming impressions of others is a fundamental aspect of social life. These impressions necessitate the integration of many and varied sources of information about other people, including social group memberships, apparent personality traits, inferences from observed behaviors, and so forth. However, methodological limitations have hampered progress in understanding this integration process. In particular, extant approaches have been unable to measure the independent contributions of multiple features to a given impression. In this article, after describing these limitations and their constraints on theory testing and development, we present a multinomial processing tree model as a computational solution to the problem. Specifically, the model distinguishes the contributions of multiple cues to social judgment. We describe an empirical demonstration of how applying the model can resolve long-standing debates among person perception researchers. Finally, we survey a variety of questions to which this approach can be profitably applied. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1266-1274"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142294114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号