成功的日常决策:结合属性和关联

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500009414
A. Banks, David M. Gamblin
{"title":"成功的日常决策:结合属性和关联","authors":"A. Banks, David M. Gamblin","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n How do people make everyday decisions in order to achieve the most\n successful outcome? Decision making research typically evaluates choices\n according to their expected utility. However, this research largely focuses\n on abstract or hypothetical tasks and rarely investigates whether the\n outcome is successful and satisfying for the decision maker. Instead, we use\n an everyday decision making task in which participants describe a personally\n meaningful decision they are currently facing. We investigate the decision\n processes used to make this decision, and evaluate how successful and\n satisfying the outcome of the decision is for them. We examine how well\n analytic, attribute-based processes explain everyday decision making and\n predict decision outcomes, and we compare these processes to associative\n processes elicited through free association. We also examine the\n characteristics of decisions and individuals that are associated with good\n decision outcomes. Across three experiments we found that: 1) an analytic\n decision analysis of everyday decisions is not superior to simpler\n attribute-based processes in predicting decision outcomes; 2) contrary to\n research linking associative cognition to biases, free association generates\n valid cues that predict choice and decision outcomes as effectively as\n attribute-based approaches; 3) contrary to research favouring either\n attribute-based or associative processes, combining both attribute-based and\n associates best explains everyday decisions and most accurately predicts\n decision outcomes; and 4) individuals with a tendency to attempt analytic\n thinking do not make more successful everyday decisions. Instead, frequency,\n simplicity, and knowledge of the decision predict success. We propose that\n attribute-based and associative processes, in combination, both explain\n everyday decision making and predict successful decision outcomes.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Successful everyday decision making: Combining attributes and\\n associates\",\"authors\":\"A. Banks, David M. Gamblin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1930297500009414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n How do people make everyday decisions in order to achieve the most\\n successful outcome? Decision making research typically evaluates choices\\n according to their expected utility. However, this research largely focuses\\n on abstract or hypothetical tasks and rarely investigates whether the\\n outcome is successful and satisfying for the decision maker. Instead, we use\\n an everyday decision making task in which participants describe a personally\\n meaningful decision they are currently facing. We investigate the decision\\n processes used to make this decision, and evaluate how successful and\\n satisfying the outcome of the decision is for them. We examine how well\\n analytic, attribute-based processes explain everyday decision making and\\n predict decision outcomes, and we compare these processes to associative\\n processes elicited through free association. We also examine the\\n characteristics of decisions and individuals that are associated with good\\n decision outcomes. Across three experiments we found that: 1) an analytic\\n decision analysis of everyday decisions is not superior to simpler\\n attribute-based processes in predicting decision outcomes; 2) contrary to\\n research linking associative cognition to biases, free association generates\\n valid cues that predict choice and decision outcomes as effectively as\\n attribute-based approaches; 3) contrary to research favouring either\\n attribute-based or associative processes, combining both attribute-based and\\n associates best explains everyday decisions and most accurately predicts\\n decision outcomes; and 4) individuals with a tendency to attempt analytic\\n thinking do not make more successful everyday decisions. Instead, frequency,\\n simplicity, and knowledge of the decision predict success. We propose that\\n attribute-based and associative processes, in combination, both explain\\n everyday decision making and predict successful decision outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009414\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009414","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们如何在日常生活中做出决定以获得最成功的结果?决策研究通常根据选择的预期效用来评估选择。然而,这项研究主要集中在抽象或假设的任务上,很少调查结果是否成功并让决策者满意。相反,我们使用一项日常决策任务,参与者在其中描述他们目前面临的个人有意义的决定。我们调查了用于做出该决策的决策过程,并评估决策结果对他们来说有多成功和令人满意。我们研究了基于属性的分析过程如何很好地解释日常决策和预测决策结果,并将这些过程与通过自由联想引发的联想过程进行了比较。我们还研究了与良好决策结果相关的决策和个人的特征。在三个实验中,我们发现:1)日常决策的分析决策分析在预测决策结果方面并不优于更简单的基于属性的过程;2) 与将联想认知与偏见联系起来的研究相反,自由联想产生了有效的线索,可以像基于属性的方法一样有效地预测选择和决策结果;3) 与倾向于基于属性或关联过程的研究相反,将基于属性和关联过程相结合,可以最好地解释日常决策,并最准确地预测决策结果;和4)倾向于尝试分析思维的人不会做出更成功的日常决策。相反,决策的频率、简单性和知识可以预测成功。我们提出,基于属性的过程和关联过程相结合,既可以解释日常决策,又可以预测成功的决策结果。
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
Successful everyday decision making: Combining attributes and associates
How do people make everyday decisions in order to achieve the most successful outcome? Decision making research typically evaluates choices according to their expected utility. However, this research largely focuses on abstract or hypothetical tasks and rarely investigates whether the outcome is successful and satisfying for the decision maker. Instead, we use an everyday decision making task in which participants describe a personally meaningful decision they are currently facing. We investigate the decision processes used to make this decision, and evaluate how successful and satisfying the outcome of the decision is for them. We examine how well analytic, attribute-based processes explain everyday decision making and predict decision outcomes, and we compare these processes to associative processes elicited through free association. We also examine the characteristics of decisions and individuals that are associated with good decision outcomes. Across three experiments we found that: 1) an analytic decision analysis of everyday decisions is not superior to simpler attribute-based processes in predicting decision outcomes; 2) contrary to research linking associative cognition to biases, free association generates valid cues that predict choice and decision outcomes as effectively as attribute-based approaches; 3) contrary to research favouring either attribute-based or associative processes, combining both attribute-based and associates best explains everyday decisions and most accurately predicts decision outcomes; and 4) individuals with a tendency to attempt analytic thinking do not make more successful everyday decisions. Instead, frequency, simplicity, and knowledge of the decision predict success. We propose that attribute-based and associative processes, in combination, both explain everyday decision making and predict successful decision outcomes.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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