受害者国籍不会影响参与者的风险偏好

Pei Kan, Yiyun Mao, Hongdi Wang
{"title":"受害者国籍不会影响参与者的风险偏好","authors":"Pei Kan, Yiyun Mao, Hongdi Wang","doi":"10.2991/assehr.k.211220.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The human brain does not always function rationally. The classical framing effect suggests people have different risk preferences regarding how the situation is framed. Some research suggests nationality will influence decision-making. This study explores whether people will change their risk preferences when questions are framed differently and set in different national contexts. An online between-subject-design experiment among 224 Chinese grownups was conducted, using a modified version of “Asian Disease Problem”. The independent variables of this study were the nationalities in each question and negative or positive framings of the question, while the dependent variable was the participants’ risk preference. The results showed that framing has a significant main effect. Nationality was not found a significant main effect, but the main effect of framing remains significant in each nationality setting. This study revealed that people had different risk preferences depending on the framings of the question. Participants were inclined to choose the riskseeking option. At the same time, the question was framed negatively but not showed a salient preference for riskseeking or risk-aversive options in positive framing. However, participants were not influenced by which nationality the question was set in. Further research containing the priming of nationality before the framing question is needed to examine the exact relationship between nationality and the framing. fMRI studies of which parts of the brain are active during participants' decision-making might also help to provide deeper understandings of the neuropsychological rationales of their choices.","PeriodicalId":448681,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nationality of Victims Will Not Influence Participants’ Risk Preference\",\"authors\":\"Pei Kan, Yiyun Mao, Hongdi Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.2991/assehr.k.211220.105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The human brain does not always function rationally. The classical framing effect suggests people have different risk preferences regarding how the situation is framed. Some research suggests nationality will influence decision-making. This study explores whether people will change their risk preferences when questions are framed differently and set in different national contexts. An online between-subject-design experiment among 224 Chinese grownups was conducted, using a modified version of “Asian Disease Problem”. The independent variables of this study were the nationalities in each question and negative or positive framings of the question, while the dependent variable was the participants’ risk preference. The results showed that framing has a significant main effect. Nationality was not found a significant main effect, but the main effect of framing remains significant in each nationality setting. This study revealed that people had different risk preferences depending on the framings of the question. Participants were inclined to choose the riskseeking option. At the same time, the question was framed negatively but not showed a salient preference for riskseeking or risk-aversive options in positive framing. However, participants were not influenced by which nationality the question was set in. Further research containing the priming of nationality before the framing question is needed to examine the exact relationship between nationality and the framing. fMRI studies of which parts of the brain are active during participants' decision-making might also help to provide deeper understandings of the neuropsychological rationales of their choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211220.105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211220.105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类的大脑并不总是理性地运转。经典框架效应表明,人们对情况的框架有不同的风险偏好。一些研究表明国籍会影响决策。这项研究探讨了当问题的框架和国家背景不同时,人们是否会改变他们的风险偏好。在224名中国成年人中进行了一项在线受试者设计实验,使用了修改版的“亚洲疾病问题”。本研究的自变量是每个问题的国籍和问题的消极或积极框架,而因变量是参与者的风险偏好。结果表明,框架效应具有显著的主效应。国籍没有发现显著的主效应,但框架的主效应在各国籍设置中仍然显著。这项研究表明,人们有不同的风险偏好取决于问题的框架。参与者倾向于选择寻求风险的选项。同时,问题的框架是消极的,但在积极框架中没有表现出对风险寻求或风险厌恶选项的显著偏好。然而,参与者并没有受到问题设定国籍的影响。为了检验国籍和框架之间的确切关系,需要进一步的研究,包括在框架问题之前的国籍启动。fMRI研究在参与者做决定时大脑的哪个部分是活跃的,也可能有助于更深入地理解他们选择的神经心理学原理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Nationality of Victims Will Not Influence Participants’ Risk Preference
The human brain does not always function rationally. The classical framing effect suggests people have different risk preferences regarding how the situation is framed. Some research suggests nationality will influence decision-making. This study explores whether people will change their risk preferences when questions are framed differently and set in different national contexts. An online between-subject-design experiment among 224 Chinese grownups was conducted, using a modified version of “Asian Disease Problem”. The independent variables of this study were the nationalities in each question and negative or positive framings of the question, while the dependent variable was the participants’ risk preference. The results showed that framing has a significant main effect. Nationality was not found a significant main effect, but the main effect of framing remains significant in each nationality setting. This study revealed that people had different risk preferences depending on the framings of the question. Participants were inclined to choose the riskseeking option. At the same time, the question was framed negatively but not showed a salient preference for riskseeking or risk-aversive options in positive framing. However, participants were not influenced by which nationality the question was set in. Further research containing the priming of nationality before the framing question is needed to examine the exact relationship between nationality and the framing. fMRI studies of which parts of the brain are active during participants' decision-making might also help to provide deeper understandings of the neuropsychological rationales of their choices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Individual Differences in Self-Esteem in Response to Different Forms of Social Exclusion Legal Effectiveness of The Supreme Court Regulation on Sharia Economic Dispute Settlement in West Java Religious Court Types of Indonesian Sentences by Ten Years Old Receptive Child Transitivity System in CNN Online News Development of E-Magazine Based on Flipbook Maker on the Pattern Drafting Home Clothing in the Faculty of Engineering Medan State University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1