English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88987/118697 (75%)
Visitors : 23575096      Online Users : 228
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/54643
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54643


    Title: 檢驗以比較為基礎的決策理論-Decision by sampling theory之適切性
    Examination of the comparison-based decision making theory: The boundary of the decision by sampling theory
    Authors: 李孟潔
    Contributors: 楊立行
    李孟潔
    Keywords: 評價與決策
    範圍頻次理論
    抽樣決策理論
    選擇理論
    judgment and decision making
    range frequency theory
    decision by sampling
    decision theory
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-10-30 11:27:25 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   Vlaev等人(2011)提出大部分決策理論可分為「數值優先(第一類)」、「計算數值並以比較為基礎(第二類)」及「純粹比較(第三類)」三種觀點。在純粹比較觀點中,Stewart等人(2006)提出的抽樣決策理論認為個人的決策歷程只有形成決策樣本,並將目標物與決策樣本中其他選項進行兩兩次序比較就能產生對該目標物的評價,不需要真正計算選項的數值。然而很少研究檢驗決策是否確實不牽涉刺激數值的計算,以及第三類觀點是否優於第一及第二類觀點的理論。
      本研究的目的為檢驗抽樣決策理論的適切性,並進行資料庫分析及四類實驗。資料庫分析以代表三種觀點的薪資、薪資相對位置及薪資相對排名為預測變項,工作滿意度為依變項進行階層回歸,結果支持相對排名最能預測工作滿意度。
      實驗部分則以Brown 等人(2008)的實驗設計為基礎,展開四類實驗檢驗排名對滿意度評價的影響是否存在且強勢。結果發現排名對滿意度評價的影響雖穩定存在,但影響強度會隨著實驗程序是否暗示受試者進行比較而改變,且相對位置亦會影響評價結果,因此本研究的結果支持第二類觀點的範圍頻次理論。
      然而抽樣決策理論並非錯誤。藉由比較四個實驗間的差異,本研究認為抽樣決策理論若將記憶或抽樣歷程可能發生的偏誤納入考量,應能增加對實證資料之解釋力。無論是範圍頻次理論或抽樣決策理論,由於未考量個人對物理刺激的感受性及物理空間與心理空間的對應關係,可能導致部分受試者的反應不適合用此類模型解釋,亦是未來可以進一步探討的方向。
      雖然受限於實驗設計無法檢驗受試者對於刺激材料的記憶程度,且實驗設計相較於真實決策情境簡單許多,外推性受到限制,但在相對簡單,比較細微實驗程序差異的本研究中,仍能看到個人隨著作業環境不同而改變行為模式的彈性,無疑是對傳統經濟學家的理性人假設的一個挑戰。
    Reference: Baumgartner, H., & J. E. M. Steenkamp. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-56.
    Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, (in Latin), English translation in Econometrica, 22, (1954), 23-36.
    Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 15(1), 89-96.
    Borowiak, D. S. (1989). Model Discrimination for Nonlinear Regression Models. New York,NY: Marcel Dekker.
    Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D. A., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and Happiness: Rank of Income, Not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471-475. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362671
    Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409.
    Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does Wage Rank Affect Employees’Well-being? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47(3), 355-389. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00525.x
    Clark, A. E., Westergård‐Nielsen, N., & Kristensen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2‐3), 519-527.
    Della Bitta, A. J., & Monroe, K. B. (1974). The influence of adaptation levels on subjective price perceptions. In S. Ward & P. Wright (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 359-369). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
    Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. The journal of political economy, 56, 279-304.
    Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In Koehler, D. & Harvey, N (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making ( pp. 62–88), Blackwell.
    Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 55(3), 259.
    Hagerty, M. R. (2000). Social comparisons of income in one's community: Evidence from national surveys of income and happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 78(4), 764. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.764
    Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69 (3), 192-203.
    Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Mumpower, J. (1980) Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures. New York,NY: Praeger.
    Helson, H. (1947). Adaptation-Level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. The American Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 1-29.
    Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory, New York: Harper and Row.
    Janiszewski, C., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353-368.
    Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 461
    Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
    Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 408-418.
    Kirby, K. N. (2011). An empirical assessment of the form of utility functions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 461-461-476. doi: 10.1037/a0021968
    Lévy-Garboua, L., & Montmarquette, C. (2007, May). A Theory of Satisfaction and Utility with Empirical and Experimental Evidences. Paper presented at the Behavioral and Experimental Economics Conference on the French Economic Association, Lyon, France. Paper retrieved from http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/
    afse-jee/Papiers/37.pdf
    Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J.S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson R.J. et al. (Ed.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
    Mellers, B. A. (1982). Equity judgment: A revision of Aristotelian views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 242.
    Mellers, B. A. (1986). " Fair" allocations of salaries and taxes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(1), 80.
    Mellers, B. A., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1983). Contextual effects in social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(2), 157-171.
    Monroe, K. B. (1971). Measuring Price Thresholds by Psychophysics and Latitudes of Acceptance. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 460–464.
    Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers' subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 70-80.
    Niedrich, R. W., Sharma, S., & Wedell, D. H. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 339-354.
    Parducci, A., Calfee, R. C., Marshall, L. M., & Davidson, L. P. (1960). Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 65.
    Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological review, 72(6), 407-418. doi: 10.1037/h0022602
    Parducci, A., & Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 427.
    Parducci, A. (1983). Category ratings and the relational character of judgment. In H. G. Geissler, H. F. J. M. Buffort, E. L. J. Leeuwenberg, & V. Sarris (Eds.), Modern issues in perception (pp. 89-105). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Vissenschaffen.
    Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Smith, R. H., Diener, E., & Wedell, D. H. (1989). Intrapersonal and social comparison determinants of happiness: A range-frequency analysis. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 56(3), 317-317-325. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.317
    Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003
    Tversky, A., & Kahnaman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
    Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011). Does the brain calculate value? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
    Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social Psychology at the Crossroads (pp. 273-296). New York, NY: Harper Press.
    von Neumann, J., & O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 230-249.
    Wedell, D. H., & Parducci, A. (1988). The category effect in social judgment: Experimental ratings of happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 55(3), 341.
    Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Roman, D. (1989). Student perceptions of fair grading: A range-frequency analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 233-248.
    Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Lane, M. (1990). Reducing the Dependence of Clinical Judgment of the Immediate Context: Effects of Number of Categories and Type of Anchors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 319–329.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    心理學研究所
    99752005
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520051
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[心理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    005101.pdf8568KbAdobe PDF589View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback