用“啊哈!”增加风险偏好

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552
Yuhua Yu, Carola Salvi, Maxi Becker, Mark Beeman
{"title":"用“啊哈!”增加风险偏好","authors":"Yuhua Yu, Carola Salvi, Maxi Becker, Mark Beeman","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided pre­liminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solving problems with an Aha! increases risk preference\",\"authors\":\"Yuhua Yu, Carola Salvi, Maxi Becker, Mark Beeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided pre­liminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"172 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259552","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要用洞察力解决问题的高潮是“啊哈!“时刻”:一种自信和愉悦的感觉。在日常生活中,见解之后往往会有重要的决定,比如决定如何处理一个新想法。在这里,我们调查了是否有啊哈!时刻影响着随后的决策。因为啊哈!时刻往往会引发积极的影响,这通常与冒险倾向的增加有关,我们假设,人们在洞察力解决问题后,尽管存在更大的不确定性,但仍会倾向于有更多上行空间的金钱回报。参与者被要求解决口头难题,并报告他们是有洞察力还是没有洞察力。在每个谜题之后,他们在两种奖励中进行选择:固定奖励或有50%机会获得高奖励或低奖励的风险奖励。与没有解决问题相比,参与者在解决问题后更有可能选择风险回报,这表明他们暂时有更高的风险偏好。这项研究提供了一种结转效应的初步证据——啊哈!对随后的风险选择的时刻——这可能对日常决策产生影响。关键词:洞察问题解决风险偏好风险决策披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。数据可用性声明当前研究期间生成的数据集和分析代码可在https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1上公开获取,除非另有说明,否则标准误差在“±”符号后报告如果参与者没有在每种解决方案类型中报告正确的解决方案,从而产生足够的数据进行分析(39),未能通过嵌入式注意力质量检查(47),或提供不一致的基线响应(6),则将被排除在进一步分析之外与实验1相同,参与者在一开始就被告知奖金规则。为了抑制提供错误解决方案以获得奖金的参与者,最终的奖金与正确的解决方案挂钩。如果参与者解决了少于5个cra,奖金的数量将与正确解决方案的数量相等。然而,每个奖励选项仍然有相同的机会被计算机选中。美国空军科学研究办公室[FA8650-15-2-5518]。YY由NIH资助[T32 NS047987]。
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
Solving problems with an Aha! increases risk preference
AbstractSolving problems with insight culminates in an “Aha! moment”: a feeling of confidence and pleasure. In daily life, insights are often followed by important decisions, such as deciding what to do with a new idea. Here, we investigated whether having an Aha! moment affects subsequent decision-making. Because Aha! moments tend to elicit positive affect, which is generally associated with an increased risk-taking tendency, we hypothesized that people would favor a monetary payout with more upside despite greater uncertainty after solving a problem with insight. Participants were asked to solve verbal puzzles and report whether they solved them with insight or without insight. After each puzzle, they chose between two bonuses: a fixed payout or a risk payout with 50% chance of receiving a high or a low payout. Participants were more likely to choose the risk payout after they solved with insight compared to without, suggesting a temporarily higher risk preference. The study provided pre­liminary evidence of a carryover effect - the impact of an Aha! moment on the subsequent risk choice - that can have implications in everyday decision-making.Keywords: Insightproblem-solvingrisk preferencerisk decision-making Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe datasets generated during the current study and the analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/5f4ez/.Notes1 Unless specified otherwise, standard errors are reported after the “±” sign.2 Participants were excluded for further analysis if they did not report a correct solution in each solution type, thus yielding insufficient data to analyze (39), failed the embedded attention quality check (47), or provided inconsistent baseline response (6).3 Same as in Exp. 1, participants were informed of the bonus rule at the beginning. To disincentivize participants providing incorrect solutions just to get bonus, the final payout was tied to the correct solutions. If a participant solved fewer than 5 CRAs, the number of bonuses to be paid out would be equal to the number of the correct solutions. Each bonus choice, however, still had equal chance of being selected by computer.Additional informationFundingAir Force Office of Scientific Research [FA8650-15-2-5518]. YY was supported by NIH grant [T32 NS047987].
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
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