社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

人们常常会遇到对距离不同的事物进行权衡的空间决策，这类决策与人类生活息息相关。虽然时间和空间紧密相关，但空间决策仍有其自身的独特性，然而，目前还没有专门的的理论模型来解释人如何做空间决策。己有研究者沿用跨期决策中的折扣思路刻画空间决策规律，由此看来借鉴跨期决策的折扣模型来解释空间决策似乎是未来的趋势。然而用折扣模型解释跨期决策己频频受阻，研究者发现了众多违背折扣模型假设的效应，而一些非折扣模型如齐当别模型却能解释众多跨期决策效应。那么类似地，相较于折扣模型，齐当别模型是否能更好地解释空间决策?因此，本研究欲探讨，若采用折扣模型来解释空间决策，是否也会存在类似的违背折扣模型基本假设的效应(研究1)?若存在空间决策效应，那么维度间差异判断能否中介这些效应，也即齐当别理论能否解释这些效应(研究2)?若进一步操纵维度间差异判断，维度间差异判断能否影响空间决策，也即齐当别理论能否解释空间决策(研究3)?
研究1中，我们检验是否存在变化距离维度的空间决策效应(子研究1)和变化结果维度的空间决策效应(子研究2)。类比跨期决策效应，在子研究1中，我们设计了检验此地效应、共同差异效应、次比例效应和距离单位效应的题目，在子研究2中，我们设计了检验量级效应、货币单位效应、金钱单位效应的题目。每个效应由两题二择一的题目组成，若被试在两道题目的选择不一致，说明效应存在。两个子研究均采用混合实验设计，每位被试需完成1个空间决策效应对应的3组参数不同的题目。结果发现，被试在同一效应的两道题目中选择不一致，这说明空间决策中存在此地效应、共同差异效应、次比例效应、距离单位效应、量级效应和货币单位效应。
在研究2中我们检验维度间差异判断能否中介变化距离维度的空间决策效应(子研究3)和变化结果维度的空间决策效应(子研究4)。研究采用混合实验设计，每位被试需完成一个效应对应的3组参数不同的题目。实验材料除了具体参数外与研究1基本相同。被试需先完成测量被试的维度间差异判断的“直观模拟天平((visual analogue scale)判断任务”，再完成测量被试对选项的偏好程度的“偏好选择任务”。中介分析结果显示，维度间差异判断可中介研究1发现的所有空间决策行为效应。这说明齐当别理论可能可以解释研究1发现的空间决策效应。
为了直接检验这两者的因果关系，在研究3中，分别采用维度重要性操纵 (子研究5)和维度差异操纵(子研究6)两种操纵方式，从“距离维度差异大于金钱维度差异”以及“金钱维度差异大于距离维度差异”两个方向来操纵维度间差异判断。实验程序与研究2相似，但在实验组的被试在阅读完题目后呈现操纵话语。结果发现，操纵被试感知“距离维度差异大于金钱维度差异”，被试会更倾向于选择在距离维度占优的选项，而操纵被试感知“金钱维度差异大于距离维度差异”，被试会更倾向于选择在金钱维度占优的选项。并且，操纵被试感知在同一效应的两道题目的维度间差异判断接近，空间决策效应出现减弱甚至反向增强，而操纵被试感知在同一效应的两道题目的维度间差异判断的差异变大，空间效应出现增强。这说明齐当别理论可能可以解释空间决策。
基于上述研究结果，预见类比跨期决策的折扣模型建立模型来解释空间决策会遭遇困难。但是，当决策者违背此地效用的恒定性、折扣不变性和折扣的独立性的假设时，如齐当别这样的非折扣模型可以较好解释空间决策。本研究结果提示，相比于折扣模型，更适合采用齐当别理论来解释人如何做空间决策。

We make spatial decisions that trade off consequences at different distances. Such decisions are closely related to human life. Although time and space are closely related, spatial decision making still has its own uniqueness. However, there is no theory that specifically explains how people make spatial decisions. Researchers have used the idea of discounting in intertemporal choices to capture spatial decision making's characteristic. It seems to be a trend to use a discounting model to explain spatial decision making. As we all known, using discounting model to explain intertemporal decision making has been challenged. Many researchers have found many effects that violet discounting model assumptions. Some studies proposed that those effects can be explain by equate-to-differentiate model, which is a non-discounting model. Similarly, in the spatial decision making, does equate-to-differentiate model explain better than the discounting model? This study aims to explore: 1) If a discount model is used to explain spatial decision making, will there be similar effects of violating assumptions of the discounting model (Study 1)? Is difference comparing process a mediator for spatial decision making effects (Study 2)? Can difference comparing process influence spatial decision making, that is, whether equate-to-differentiate model can explain spatial decision making (Study 3)?
In Study 1，we examine whether there are spatial decision making effects for distance dimension (Study la) and spatial decision making effects for money dimension (Study 1b). Based on an analogy with intertemporal decision making effects, in Study la, we designed the choices to test the current position effect, common difference effect, subproportionality effect and length unit effect. In Study 1b, we designed the choices to test magnitude effect, currency effect and monetary unit effect. Each effect consists of two choices with two alternatives. If participants' choices are inconsistent, the effect exists. The experimental procedures for Study la and Study 1b are the same. Study 1 is mixed design. Each participant made alternative decisions in three pairs of choices with different parameters of one spatial decision effect. The results show that participants' choices are inconsistent which indicates that there are current position effect, common difference effect, subproportionality effect,length unit effect magnitude effect and currency effect in spatial decision making.
In Study 2, we examine whether difference comparing process mediate spatial decision making effects for distance dimension (Study 2a) and spatial decision-making effects for money dimension (Study 2b). Study 2 is mixed design. Each participant faced three pairs of choices with different parameters of one spatial decision making effect. The experimental material is basically the same as Study 1 except for the parameters. Participants need to complete the "visual analogue scale" task first, which measures the difference comparing process, and then complete the "preference task" that measures the preference for the options. Mediation analysis shows that the difference comparing process can mediate all spatial decision making behaviors found in the studyl.The results indicate that equate-to-differentiate model may explain effects of spatial decision making found in Study 1……