主观经济稀缺感和决策情境对个体风险偏好的影响
The Impact of Subjective Economic Scarcity and Decision-Making Situations on Individual Risk Preferences
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2024.146444, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 喻寒兵, 邓 磊：长沙民政职业技术学院，湖南 长沙
关键词: 主观经济稀缺感；决策情境；风险偏好；经济稀缺心理量表(PIFS)；Subjective Economic Scarcity； Decision-Making Situations； Risk Preference； PIFS
摘要: 目的：考察主观经济稀缺感和决策情境对个体风险偏好的影响。方法：采用经济稀缺心理量表(Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity, PIFS)测量个体的主观经济稀缺感，采用风险决策问卷测量个体的风险偏好。结果：1) 损失情境下的风险偏好指数显著高于获益情境下的风险偏好指数；2) 主观经济稀缺感和决策情境的交互作用显著，具体来说，损失情境下，高主观经济稀缺感被试的风险偏好指数与低主观经济稀缺感被试的风险偏好指数不存在显著差异；反之，获益情境下，高主观经济稀缺感被试的风险偏好指数显著低于低主观经济稀缺感被试的风险偏好指数。结论：主观经济稀缺感对个体风险偏好的影响受决策情境的调节。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the influence of subjective economic scarcity and decision-making situations on individual risk preferences. Methods: The Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity (PIFS) was used to measure individuals’ subjective economic scarcity, and a risk decision questionnaire was used to measure individuals’ risk preferences. Results: 1) The risk preference index in loss scenarios was significantly higher than that in gain scenarios; 2) There was a significant interaction between subjective economic scarcity and decision-making situations. Specifically, in loss scenarios, there was no significant difference in the risk preference index between individuals with high subjective economic scarcity and those with low subjective economic scarcity; conversely, in gain scenarios, the risk preference index of individuals with high subjective economic scarcity was significantly lower than that of individuals with low subjective economic scarcity. Conclusion: The influence of subjective economic scarcity on individual risk preferences is moderated by decision-making situations.
文章引用：喻寒兵, 邓磊 (2024). 主观经济稀缺感和决策情境对个体风险偏好的影响. 心理学进展, 14(6), 595-602. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.146444

参考文献

[1] 陈锡友, 张湘一, 吴志辉, 丁道群(2023). 经济稀缺对风险偏好的影响: 经济稀缺心态的作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 31(5), 1052-1056.
[2] 刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅(2014). 自我-他人决策差异: 问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 580−587.
[3] 徐富明, 黄龙, 张慧, 相鹏, 刘腾飞, 李亚红(2020). 行为贫困陷阱的心理机制与管理对策: 基于认知与动机双视角. 心理科学进展, 28(5), 681-691.
[4] 张彦驰, 童丹丹, 陈晨, 郭永玉(2023). 贫困心态对跨期决策的影响: 分析思维与损益框架的作用. 心理科学, 46(2), 419-426.
[5] Blalock, G., Just, D. R., & Simon, D. H. (2007). Hitting the Jackpot or Hitting the Skids: Entertainment, Poverty, and the Demand for State Lotteries. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66, 545-570.[CrossRef] 
[6] Bull, T., Mittelmark, M. B., & Kanyeka, N. E. (2013). Assets for Well-Being for Women Living in Deep Poverty: Through a Salutogenic Looking-Glass. Critical Public Health, 23, 160-173.[CrossRef] 
[7] Caraco, T., Martindale, S., & Whittam, T. S. (1980). An Empirical Demonstration of Risk-Sensitive Foraging Preferences. Animal Behaviour, 28, 820-830.[CrossRef] 
[8] Carvalho, L. S., Prina, S., & Sydnor, J. (2016). The Effect of Saving on Risk Attitudes and Intertemporal Choices. Journal of Development Economics, 120, 41-52.[CrossRef] 
[9] Cook, L. A., & Sadeghein, R. (2018). Effects of Perceived Scarcity on Financial Decision Making. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 37, 68-87.[CrossRef] 
[10] de Bruijn, E., & Antonides, G. (2021). Poverty and Economic Decision Making: A Review of Scarcity Theory. Theory and Decision, 92, 5-37.[CrossRef] 
[11] Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Fliessbach, K., Sunde, U., & Weber, B. (2011). Relative versus Absolute Income, Joy of Winning, and Gender: Brain Imaging Evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 279-285.[CrossRef] 
[12] Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the Psychology of Poverty. Science, 344, 862-867.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A Fundamental Prediction Error: Self–others Discrepancies in Risk Preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 45-53.[CrossRef] 
[14] Huang, L., Li, X., Xu, F., & Li, F. (2023). Consequences of Scarcity: The Impact of Perceived Scarcity on Executive Functioning and Its Neural Basis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, Article 1158511.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Huijsmans, I., Ma, I., Micheli, L., Civai, C., Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2019). A Scarcity Mindset Alters Neural Processing Underlying Consumer Decision Making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 11699-11704.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.[CrossRef] 
[17] Liang, S., Fan, P., & Yang, G. (2023). To Take a Risk or Not? The Effect of Perceived Scarcity on Risky Choices. Behavioral Sciences, 13, Article 743.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Liu, E. M. (2013). Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 1386-1403.[CrossRef] 
[19] Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Henry Holt.
[20] Ong, Q., Theseira, W., & Ng, I. Y. H. (2019). Reducing Debt Improves Psychological Functioning and Changes Decision-Making in the Poor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 7244-7249.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some Consequences of Having Too Little. Science, 338, 682-685.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity Frames Value. Psychological Science, 26, 402-412.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Stephens, D. W. (1981). The Logic of Risk-Sensitive Foraging Preferences. Animal Behaviour, 29, 628-629.[CrossRef] 
[24] van Dijk, W. W., van der Werf, M. M. B., & van Dillen, L. F. (2022). The Psychological Inventory of Financial Scarcity (PIFS): A Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 101, Article ID: 101939.[CrossRef] 
[25] Weber, E. U. (2009). Risk Attitude and Preference. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1, 79-88.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Welte, J. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Barnes, G. M., & Tidwell, M. O. (2006). Multiple Risk Factors for Frequent and Problem Gambling: Individual, Social, and Ecological. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1548-1568.[CrossRef]