直觉和分析在不同信息获取与呈现方式下对多特征目标判断质量的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用多特征目标判断任务，考察了不同信息获取方式与信息呈现方式条件下，直觉和分析思维模式对判断质量的影响。结果发现：（1）在多特征目标判断任务中，直觉思维比分析思维更有效；（2）直觉型决策者运用直觉思维的判断质量比感觉型决策者更高；（3）归类组块的信息呈现方式能够有效提升决策者运用直觉思维的判断质量；（4）思维模式、信息获取方式与信息呈现方式对多特征目标的判断质量存在三阶交互作用，归类组块的信息呈现方式使直觉型决策者运用直觉思维的判断质量最高，而运用分析思维的判断质量低于感觉型决策者；归类组块排列信息时，直觉型决策者运用分析思维的判断质量低于信息随机排列时的水平。

关键词: 直觉, 多特征目标, 信息获取方式, 组块, 判断质量

Abstract: The multi-feature object judgment task was used to investigate the influence of the different information acquisition mode and information presentation mode on the quality of judgment, which is respectively based on intuition and deliberation. The results showed that: 1) In the multi-feature object judgment task, intuitive thinking was more effective than deliberative thinking. 2) Through intuitive thinking, the quality of judgment by the intuitive decision makers was better than that of sensitive decision makers. 3) The quality of judgment of the decision makers using intuitive thinking could be effectively promoted with the information presentation mode of the categorization chunk. 4) The quality of judgment of the multi-feature object was influenced by the three-ways interaction effect of the thinking mode, the information acquisition mode and the information presentation mode. The information presentation mode of the categorization chunk made the intuitive decision-makers have the best judgment quality by using intuitive thinking, while the quality of judgment using deliberative thinking lower than that made by sensitive decision makers. The intuitive decision makers using deliberative thinking made higher quality of judgment when the information was classified by the categorization chunk than that when the information is randomly arranged.

Key words: intuition, multi-feature object, information acquisition mode, chunking, quality of judgment

中图分类号:

B842

袁方舟, 喻亚玲, 朱璐瑶, 潘运, 乌云特娜, 七十三. 直觉和分析在不同信息获取与呈现方式下对多特征目标判断质量的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 17-23,112.

YUAN Fangzhou, YU Yaling, ZHU Luyao, PAN Yun, WU Yuntena, QI Shisan. The Multi-Feature Object Judgment Quality on Intuition and Deliberation Under the Different Information Acquisition Mode and Information Presentation Mode[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 17-23,112.

参考文献

蔡华俭, 朱臻雯, 杨治良. (2001). 心理类型量表(MBTI)的修订初步. 应用心理学, 7(2), 33-37, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2001.02.006
陈彬, 张琼, 原献学. (2014). 直觉与无意识思维决策质量之比较. 宁波大学学报(教育科学版), (3), 26-32
陈石, 李虹. (2014). 双加工逃生决策的顺序替代效应. 心理科学, 37(1), 83-87
黄琳妍, 李虹, 徐继红. (2013). 直觉性和分析性决策策略偏好的情境效应. 心理与行为研究, 11(6), 739-745, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2013.06.004
李彬, 徐富明, 王伟, 张慧, 罗寒冰. (2015). 决策的加工过程及个体差异: 模糊痕迹理论视角. 心理科学进展, 23(2), 316-324
李虹, 陈石, 倪士光. (2013). 直觉和分析在不同任务条件下的逃生决策效果. 心理学报, 45(1), 94-103
苗丹民, 皇甫恩, Chia, R. C., Ren, J. J. (2000). MBTI人格类型量表的效度分析. 心理学报, 32(3), 324-331
庞捷敏, 原献学, 李建升. (2007). 无意识研究新进展: 无意识思维理论述评. 心理学探新, 27(4), 8-12, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5184.2007.04.002
孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. (2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721-726
曾守锤, 李其维. (2004). 模糊痕迹理论: 对经典认知发展理论的挑战. 心理科学, 27(2), 489-492, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2004.02.073
曾维希, 张进辅. (2006). MBTI人格类型量表的理论研究与实践应用. 心理科学进展, 14(2), 225-260
张银玲, 苗丹民, 罗正学, 孙云峰. (2006). 军校学生人格类型与决策行为的关系. 中国心理卫生杂志, 20(2), 97-99, doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2006.02.008
周治金, 赵晓川, 刘昌. (2005). 直觉研究述评. 心理科学进展, 13(6), 745-751
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336-372, doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010.
Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1248-1255.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Gist is the grist: Fuzzy-trace theory and the new intuitionism. Developmental Review, 10(1), 3-47, doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90003-M.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring intuition: A review of recent trends. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 24, pp.1-39). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 280-295, doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00022-0.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586-598, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005-1007, doi: 10.1126/science.1121629.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A Theory of Unconscious Thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 95-109, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709-724, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 321-339.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
Feldman-stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., & Zotov, V. (2007). Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making, 27(1), 34-43, doi: 10.1177/0272989X06297101.
Fellows, L. K. (2006). Deciding how to decide: Ventromedial frontal lobe damage affects information acquisition in multi-attribute decision making. Brain, 129(Pt 4), 944-952.
Ferreira, M. B., Garciamarques, L., Sherman, S. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2006). Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 797-813, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.797.
Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1055-1075, doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1055.
Jansen, B. R. J., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., & Huizenga, H. M. (2012). Development of decision making: Sequential versus integrative rules. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(1), 87-100, doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.006.
Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(3), 314-329.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697.
Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 109-137, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109.
Petty, V. R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy‐trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 249-262, doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960040403.
Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 12(3), 179-195, doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179.
Rosenblatt, A. D., & Thickstun, J. T. (1994). Intuition and consciousness. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 63(4), 696-714, doi: 10.1080/21674086.1994.11927433.
Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379-396). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strick, M., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2010). Unconscious-thought effects take place off-line, not on-line. Psychological Science, 21(4), 484-488, doi: 10.1177/0956797610363555.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.
Usher, M., Russo, Z., Weyers, M., Brauner, R., & Zakay, D. (2011). The impact of the mode of thought in complex decisions: Intuitive decisions are better. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 37.
Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review Of Psychology, 60, 53-85, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 181-192, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181.

[1]	关守义,郭秀艳. 内隐学习中的知识习得及其无意识性测量^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(2): 191-201.
[2]	黄琳妍, 李虹, 徐继红. 直觉性和分析性决策策略偏好的情境效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2013, 11(6): 739-745.