我们真的相信 "多多益善 "吗?绘制数量与质量之间的隐性和显性关联图

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2403
Mariana Vences, Filipe Loureiro, Teresa Garcia-Marques
{"title":"我们真的相信 \"多多益善 \"吗?绘制数量与质量之间的隐性和显性关联图","authors":"Mariana Vences,&nbsp;Filipe Loureiro,&nbsp;Teresa Garcia-Marques","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The dimensions of quantity and quality play a crucial role in shaping our judgments and decisions. How these dimensions are perceived in relation to each other is of extreme importance when it comes to those decisions and judgments. The presumed positive link between them, embodied in the notion that “the more, the better,” is a common thread in decision-making. However, owing to the diverse contexts within which decisions unfold, individuals appear to acquire the understanding that such relationship is not universally applicable, leading to profess the belief that “quantity is not quality.” This dichotomy establishes a dissociation between the implicit and explicit associations formed regarding the connection between quantity and quality. In two studies, we put this hypothesis to the test. Initially, we explore the nature of this association through an Implicit Association Test (Study 1), followed by an investigation into the modulation of this association within an ecological context (Study 2). The results show that, explicitly, participants assert no inherent relationship between quantity and quality. However, at an implicit level, with consequential impacts on behavior, a robust positive association between quantity and quality persists, providing challenging to overturn.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do We Really Believe That “More Is Better”? Mapping Implicit and Explicit Associations Between Quantity and Quality\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Vences,&nbsp;Filipe Loureiro,&nbsp;Teresa Garcia-Marques\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The dimensions of quantity and quality play a crucial role in shaping our judgments and decisions. How these dimensions are perceived in relation to each other is of extreme importance when it comes to those decisions and judgments. The presumed positive link between them, embodied in the notion that “the more, the better,” is a common thread in decision-making. However, owing to the diverse contexts within which decisions unfold, individuals appear to acquire the understanding that such relationship is not universally applicable, leading to profess the belief that “quantity is not quality.” This dichotomy establishes a dissociation between the implicit and explicit associations formed regarding the connection between quantity and quality. In two studies, we put this hypothesis to the test. Initially, we explore the nature of this association through an Implicit Association Test (Study 1), followed by an investigation into the modulation of this association within an ecological context (Study 2). The results show that, explicitly, participants assert no inherent relationship between quantity and quality. However, at an implicit level, with consequential impacts on behavior, a robust positive association between quantity and quality persists, providing challenging to overturn.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2403\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2403","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数量和质量对我们的判断和决策起着至关重要的作用。如何看待这两个维度之间的关系,对我们的决策和判断极为重要。在决策过程中,"越多越好 "这一概念所体现的两者之间的积极联系是一条共同的主线。然而,由于决策所处的环境各不相同,个人似乎逐渐认识到这种关系并非放之四海而皆准,从而宣称 "数量不代表质量"。这种二分法在数量和质量之间形成的隐性和显性联想之间建立了一种分离。在两项研究中,我们对这一假设进行了验证。首先,我们通过内隐联想测试(研究 1)来探索这种联想的性质,然后在生态背景下调查这种联想的调节情况(研究 2)。研究结果表明,在显性层面上,参与者认为数量和质量之间没有内在联系。然而,在内隐层面上,随着对行为的影响,数量和质量之间持续存在着强有力的正关联,这给推翻这种关联带来了挑战。
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
Do We Really Believe That “More Is Better”? Mapping Implicit and Explicit Associations Between Quantity and Quality

The dimensions of quantity and quality play a crucial role in shaping our judgments and decisions. How these dimensions are perceived in relation to each other is of extreme importance when it comes to those decisions and judgments. The presumed positive link between them, embodied in the notion that “the more, the better,” is a common thread in decision-making. However, owing to the diverse contexts within which decisions unfold, individuals appear to acquire the understanding that such relationship is not universally applicable, leading to profess the belief that “quantity is not quality.” This dichotomy establishes a dissociation between the implicit and explicit associations formed regarding the connection between quantity and quality. In two studies, we put this hypothesis to the test. Initially, we explore the nature of this association through an Implicit Association Test (Study 1), followed by an investigation into the modulation of this association within an ecological context (Study 2). The results show that, explicitly, participants assert no inherent relationship between quantity and quality. However, at an implicit level, with consequential impacts on behavior, a robust positive association between quantity and quality persists, providing challenging to overturn.

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
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Correction to The Effect of a Default Nudge on Experienced and Expected Autonomy: A Field Study on Food Donation Equivalence Framing and the Construction of Advocacy Messages Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior Reference-Dependent Risk-Taking in the NBA The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk
×
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