期刊文献+

安于现状偏差的心理机制、影响因素及应用启示 被引量:12

Status Quo Bias with A Focus on Psychological Mechanisms,Its Influential Factors and Application Inspirations
下载PDF
导出
摘要 安于现状偏差是指个体在决策时,倾向于不作为、维持当前或者以前的决策的一种现象。安于现状偏差包括内源的安于现状偏差与外源的安于现状偏差。目前研究者对这一现象的解释主要有两种:损失规避与后悔理论。安于现状偏差的影响因素主要包括备择项的数目、决策者的情绪以及认知与动机特征等。安于现状偏差有利于认识日常决策行为,而且在销售、管理与公共政策等实践领域有着重要的研究价值。未来的研究则需要从安于现状偏差与其他决策现象之间的关系,安于现状偏差的产生根源及其应用研究的拓展等方面来进一步探讨。 Status quo bias refers to the phenoomenon that people tend to do nothing or maintain their current or previous decisions in decision making. Status quo bias includes endogenously determined status quo bias and exogenously determined status quo bias. There are two ways for researchers to interpret this phenomenon: loss aversion and regret theory. The factors to influence status quo bias include such as follows: number of alternatives, emotion, traits of the decision maker as his cognition and motivation. Status quo bias is conducive to understanding everyday decision behaviors and is valuable for such practical areas as sale, management and public policies. Further deep exploration is needed to clarify the relationship between status quo bias and other decision phenomena, to deepen our understanding of its original roots and at last to expand its applied values.
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2010年第10期1636-1643,共8页 Advances in Psychological Science
关键词 安于现状偏差 损失规避 后悔 决策 status quo bias loss aversion regret theory decision making
  • 相关文献

参考文献45

  • 1汪祚军,李纾.行为决策中出现的分离效应[J].心理科学进展,2008,16(4):513-517. 被引量:8
  • 2刘欢,梁竹苑,李纾.行为经济学中的损失规避[J].心理科学进展,2009,17(4):788-794. 被引量:46
  • 3Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139-167.
  • 4Brown, A. L., & Kage, J. H. (2009). Behavior in a simplified stock market: The status quo bias, the disposition effect and the ostrich effect. Annals of Finance, 5, 1-14.
  • 5Burmeister, K., & Schade, C. (2007). Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 340- 362.
  • 6Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 557-565.
  • 7Ciccone, A. (2004). Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty: Comment. The American Economic Review, 94, 785-795.
  • 8Diamond, P., & Vartiaincn, H. (2007). Behavioral Economics and Its Applications. New Jersey. US: Princeton University Press.
  • 9Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. Y. (2009). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1352488.
  • 10Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765-775.

二级参考文献66

  • 1沈厚才,徐进,庞湛.损失规避偏好下的定制件采购决策分析[J].管理科学学报,2004,7(6):37-45. 被引量:44
  • 2史金艳,李凯,郁培丽.考虑损失厌恶的最优消费投资决策[J].东北大学学报(自然科学版),2005,26(12):1196-1199. 被引量:5
  • 3Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger than gains? Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 134-138.
  • 4Ariely, D., & Simonson, I. (2003). Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 113-123.
  • 5Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226-232.
  • 6Brown, T. C. (2005). Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57, 367-379.
  • 7Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 360-370.
  • 8Carrnon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 15-29.
  • 9Chapman, G. B. (1998). Similarity and reluctance to trade. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 47-58.
  • 10Chen, M. K., Lakshminarayanan, V., & Santos, L. R. (2006). How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 517-537.

共引文献52

同被引文献253

引证文献12

二级引证文献31

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部