“命运”与“日常”选择:选择情境的质性差异和选择工作的维度

Anna K. Fam, D. Leontiev, E. Osin
{"title":"“命运”与“日常”选择:选择情境的质性差异和选择工作的维度","authors":"Anna K. Fam, D. Leontiev, E. Osin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3068671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on choicework in situations of different subjective importance. Psychology students (N=74) and internet sample respondents (N=1,833) were asked to recollect several choice situations of varying importance from their experience and to name, describe, and evaluate them using a number of self-report measures. Combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis, we devised a series of qualitative indicators of choicework (context and content of choice, emotional attitude to the choice process, satisfaction with choice, mindfulness, autonomy, difficulty, and significance) and compared the choice situations on these parameters. Significant and trivial choices differed on a number of variables (more significant situations were characterized by more complicated and conscious choicework). Choice situations with different thematic content also differed in their subjective importance and other parameters of choicework. The results imply the necessity to consider the scale of significance and the thematic content of situations used in choice studies.","PeriodicalId":10477,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Fateful’ vs. ‘Everyday’ Choices: Qualitative Differences in Choice Situations and the Dimensions of Choicework\",\"authors\":\"Anna K. Fam, D. Leontiev, E. Osin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3068671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study focuses on choicework in situations of different subjective importance. Psychology students (N=74) and internet sample respondents (N=1,833) were asked to recollect several choice situations of varying importance from their experience and to name, describe, and evaluate them using a number of self-report measures. Combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis, we devised a series of qualitative indicators of choicework (context and content of choice, emotional attitude to the choice process, satisfaction with choice, mindfulness, autonomy, difficulty, and significance) and compared the choice situations on these parameters. Significant and trivial choices differed on a number of variables (more significant situations were characterized by more complicated and conscious choicework). Choice situations with different thematic content also differed in their subjective importance and other parameters of choicework. The results imply the necessity to consider the scale of significance and the thematic content of situations used in choice studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3068671\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3068671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究聚焦于不同主观重要性情境下的选择作业。心理学学生(N=74)和网络样本受访者(N= 1833)被要求回忆几个从他们的经历中选择的不同重要性的情况,并使用一些自我报告的方法来命名、描述和评估它们。结合定性和定量数据分析,我们设计了一系列选择工作的定性指标(选择的情境和内容、对选择过程的情绪态度、对选择的满意度、正念、自主性、难度和重要性),并对这些参数的选择情况进行了比较。重要和琐碎的选择在许多变量上有所不同(更重要的情况的特点是更复杂和有意识的选择)。不同主题内容的选择情境在主观重要性和其他选择参数上也存在差异。结果表明,有必要考虑重要性的规模和主题内容的情况下使用的选择研究。
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
‘Fateful’ vs. ‘Everyday’ Choices: Qualitative Differences in Choice Situations and the Dimensions of Choicework
This study focuses on choicework in situations of different subjective importance. Psychology students (N=74) and internet sample respondents (N=1,833) were asked to recollect several choice situations of varying importance from their experience and to name, describe, and evaluate them using a number of self-report measures. Combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis, we devised a series of qualitative indicators of choicework (context and content of choice, emotional attitude to the choice process, satisfaction with choice, mindfulness, autonomy, difficulty, and significance) and compared the choice situations on these parameters. Significant and trivial choices differed on a number of variables (more significant situations were characterized by more complicated and conscious choicework). Choice situations with different thematic content also differed in their subjective importance and other parameters of choicework. The results imply the necessity to consider the scale of significance and the thematic content of situations used in choice studies.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cost of Overconfidence in Public Information The Compliance Consequences of Fault Assignment in Sanctions Examining the Link Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Work Performance of Employees in the Private Schools, Mediated by Workplace Environment An Ordinal Theory of Risk and Correlation Aversion Persuasion Under Costly Learning
×
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