期刊文献+

参与者与旁观者:学生冲突场景下风险偏好选择差异实验研究

Participants and Bystanders:An Experimental Study on the Differences of Students'Risk Preference Choices in Conflict Situations
下载PDF
导出
摘要 近年来校园暴力问题一直是学界研究的热点,鲜见有深入探究学生冲突行为背后逻辑的研究,本文将基于框架效应分析学生出现冒险行为的缘由。在校园冲突情景下,事件中的角色和性别对学生的风险偏好具有交互影响。参与主体往往比围观者更加具有冒险倾向,且男生会因为信息属性的差异而呈现出相反的风险决策,而女生则一直在情景中表现出较高的冒险倾向。通过分析学生可能的行为偏好,在此基础上优化校园安全教育的方式,有利于增加校园风险沟通的有效性。 In recent years,campus violence has been a focus of academic research,but deep explora‐tion of the logic of the students'behavior in conflicts is scarce.This paper,based on framing effect,ana‐lyzes the reasons why students take risks.The study finds that,in the context of campus conflict,the role and gender in the event have an interactive impact on the students'risk preference.Participants tend to be more adventurous than onlookers,and boys show opposite risk decisions due to differences in informa‐tion properties,while girls always show a higher risk tendency in the situation.By exploring and analyz‐ing the students'possible behavior preferences,we can optimize the way of campus safety education,which is conducive to increasing the effectiveness of campus risk communication.
作者 王振辉 贺辛 WANG Zhenhui;HE Xin(School of Public Administration,Southwest Jiaotong University,Chengdu,Sichuan Province 610031;The Ninth Research Institute,China Electronics Technology Corporation,Mianyang,Sichuan Province 621000)
出处 《楚雄师范学院学报》 2023年第4期69-76,共8页 Journal of Chuxiong Normal University
关键词 参与者 旁观者 风险偏好 框架效应 participant bystander risk appetite framing effect
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献39

  • 1杨雷,席酉民.群体决策的权力与权力指数[J].系统工程,1996,14(2):10-14. 被引量:17
  • 2LENCH H C, FLORES S A, BENCH S W. Discrete Emotions Predict Changes in Cognition, Judgment, Experience, Behavior, and Physiology: A Meta-A- nalysis of Experimental Emotion Elicitations[J]. Psy chologica[ Bulletin, 2011, 137(5)..834-855.
  • 3HASTIE R. Problems for Judgment and Decision Making[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52:653-683.
  • 4LERNER J S, LI Y, VALDESOLO P, et al. Emo- tion and Decision Making[J]. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 2015, 66:799-823.
  • 5ANGIE A D, CONNELLY S, WAPLES E P, et al. The Influence of Discrete Emotions on Judgement and Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic ReviewVJ-. Cog- nition and Emotion, 2011, 25(8): 1 393-1 422.
  • 6MA Q G, PEI G X, WANG K. Influence of Nega- tive Emotion on the Framing Effect: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials[J]. Neuroreport, 2015, 26 (6) :325-332.
  • 7KANSKE P,KOTZ S A. Positive Emotion Speeds up Conflict Processing: ERP Responses in an Auditory Simon Task [J]. Biological Psychology, 2011, 87 (1) .. 122-127.
  • 8PASTOTTER B,GLEIXNER S, NEUHAUSER T, et al. To Push or Not to Push? Affective Influences on Moral Judgment Depend on Decision Frame[J]. Cognition, 2013, 126(3) :373-377.
  • 9STROHMINGER N,LEWIS R L, MEYER D E. Di- vergent Effects of Different Positive Emotions on Moral Judgment[J]. Cognition, 2011, 119(2) :295-300.
  • 10HABIB M, CASSOTTI M, MOUTIER S, et al. Fear and Anger Have Opposite Effects on Risk See- king in the Gain Frame[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6:1-7.

共引文献34

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