时间压力如何影响风险偏好?来自元分析的答案

IF 5.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Research Pub Date : 2023-09-09 DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucad053
Alex Belli, François A Carrillat, Natalina Zlatevska, Elizabeth Cowley
{"title":"时间压力如何影响风险偏好?来自元分析的答案","authors":"Alex Belli, François A Carrillat, Natalina Zlatevska, Elizabeth Cowley","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucad053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Four decades of research into the influences of time pressure on risky decisions have produced widely contrasting findings: 38.5% of the effects indicate that time pressure increases risk preferences, whereas 61.5% show the opposite. A theoretical framework with four conceptual categories of moderators is proposed to explain these heterogeneous findings: nature of the time constraint, negative outcome salience, negative outcome severity, and vulnerability to the outcomes. This framework is tested through a meta-analysis of 213 effect sizes reported in 83 papers, representing 65,574 unique respondents. The four categories of moderators effectively resolve notable conflicts. For example, regarding the nature of the time constraint, an absolute versus relative constraint increases risk preferences, but an ambiguous versus objective constraint decreases risk preferences. In terms of negative outcome salience, risk preferences decrease if the risk is learned about from a description (vs. experience) or the outcome is framed as a loss (vs. gain). Negative outcome severity also exerts an effect, as discrete choices lower risk preferences compared with attitudinal risk. In addition to managerial and public policy implications based on simulations, a comprehensive research agenda that builds on the robust insights of this meta-analysis is offered.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Does Time Pressure Influence Risk Preferences? Answers from a Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Alex Belli, François A Carrillat, Natalina Zlatevska, Elizabeth Cowley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jcr/ucad053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Four decades of research into the influences of time pressure on risky decisions have produced widely contrasting findings: 38.5% of the effects indicate that time pressure increases risk preferences, whereas 61.5% show the opposite. A theoretical framework with four conceptual categories of moderators is proposed to explain these heterogeneous findings: nature of the time constraint, negative outcome salience, negative outcome severity, and vulnerability to the outcomes. This framework is tested through a meta-analysis of 213 effect sizes reported in 83 papers, representing 65,574 unique respondents. The four categories of moderators effectively resolve notable conflicts. For example, regarding the nature of the time constraint, an absolute versus relative constraint increases risk preferences, but an ambiguous versus objective constraint decreases risk preferences. In terms of negative outcome salience, risk preferences decrease if the risk is learned about from a description (vs. experience) or the outcome is framed as a loss (vs. gain). Negative outcome severity also exerts an effect, as discrete choices lower risk preferences compared with attitudinal risk. In addition to managerial and public policy implications based on simulations, a comprehensive research agenda that builds on the robust insights of this meta-analysis is offered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Consumer Research\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Consumer Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad053\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad053","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

四十年来对时间压力对风险决策影响的研究产生了截然不同的结果:38.5%的研究结果表明,时间压力增加了风险偏好,而61.5%的研究结果相反。本文提出了一个包含四个调节因子概念类别的理论框架来解释这些异质性发现:时间约束的性质、负面结果的显著性、负面结果的严重性和对结果的脆弱性。该框架通过对83篇论文报告的213个效应量的荟萃分析进行了测试,这些论文代表了65,574个独特的受访者。四类版主有效地解决了显著性冲突。例如,关于时间约束的性质,绝对约束与相对约束会增加风险偏好,但模糊约束与客观约束会降低风险偏好。就负面结果显著性而言,如果风险是从描述(vs.经验)中了解到的,或者结果被框定为损失(vs.收益),那么风险偏好就会降低。负面结果严重程度也有影响,因为离散选择比态度风险更低的风险偏好。除了基于模拟的管理和公共政策影响外,还提供了基于此元分析的强大见解的综合研究议程。
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
How Does Time Pressure Influence Risk Preferences? Answers from a Meta-Analysis
Abstract Four decades of research into the influences of time pressure on risky decisions have produced widely contrasting findings: 38.5% of the effects indicate that time pressure increases risk preferences, whereas 61.5% show the opposite. A theoretical framework with four conceptual categories of moderators is proposed to explain these heterogeneous findings: nature of the time constraint, negative outcome salience, negative outcome severity, and vulnerability to the outcomes. This framework is tested through a meta-analysis of 213 effect sizes reported in 83 papers, representing 65,574 unique respondents. The four categories of moderators effectively resolve notable conflicts. For example, regarding the nature of the time constraint, an absolute versus relative constraint increases risk preferences, but an ambiguous versus objective constraint decreases risk preferences. In terms of negative outcome salience, risk preferences decrease if the risk is learned about from a description (vs. experience) or the outcome is framed as a loss (vs. gain). Negative outcome severity also exerts an effect, as discrete choices lower risk preferences compared with attitudinal risk. In addition to managerial and public policy implications based on simulations, a comprehensive research agenda that builds on the robust insights of this meta-analysis is offered.
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
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Journal of Consumer Research, established in 1974, is a reputable journal that publishes high-quality empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers on a wide range of consumer research topics. The primary objective of JCR is to contribute to the advancement of understanding consumer behavior and the practice of consumer research. To be considered for publication in JCR, a paper must make a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in consumer research. It should aim to build upon, deepen, or challenge previous studies in the field of consumption, while providing both conceptual and empirical evidence to support its findings. JCR prioritizes multidisciplinary perspectives, encouraging contributions from various disciplines, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and substantive problem areas. The journal aims to cater to a diverse readership base by welcoming articles derived from different orientations and paradigms. Overall, JCR is a valuable platform for scholars and researchers to share their work and contribute to the advancement of consumer research.
期刊最新文献
Moralizing Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B When Is Digital Censorship Permissible? A Conversation Norms Account Brand Teasing: How Brands Build Strong Relationships by Making Fun of Their Consumers Positive Contrast Scope-Insensitivity
×
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