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}
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.
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.