Reckless betting and rationality: Can a rational information processing style inhibit reckless betting?
Reckless betting and rationality: Can a rational information processing style inhibit reckless betting?
复制标题
鲁莽投注与理性：理性的信息处理方式能否抑制鲁莽投注？
DOI：
10.11225/cs.2022.038
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
楠見 孝
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
田岡 大樹;楠見 孝
不计后果的赌博是在输的可能性比赢的可能性更大的赌博中下更大的赌注。它可以被认为是一种违反规范理性的非理性行为。在本研究中，我们关注了一种源自双重过程理论的信息处理方式，并检验了理性信息处理方式会抑制鲁莽赌博的假设。在研究1 （N= 41）中，我们对信息处理方式和鲁莽投注等性状变量之间的关系进行了探索性研究。在网上进行了一项受试者间比较设计的实验，在赌博任务的第一阶段，通过操纵赢和输的数量来诱导鲁莽赌博。研究人员测量了参与者在赌博任务中的性格特征、情感状态和鲁莽程度。结果表明，理性信息处理方式通过调节积极情绪对鲁莽投注的影响来抑制鲁莽投注。在研究2 （N= 77）中，我们根据研究1中观察到的效应大小确定样本量，并试图用简化的实验程序重复研究1。此外，研究3 （N= 75）和研究4 （N= 76）试图复制研究1，但对任务施加的时间压力有所不同。然而，结果与研究1的结果不一致。我们从网络实验的情境因素和行为规范的目标导向变化两方面讨论了这些结果之间的不一致性。
Reckless betting is placing a larger bet on a gamble where losing is more likely than winning. It can be considered as an irrational behavior that violates normative rationality. In the present study, we focused on an information processing style derived from the dual process theory and examined the hypothesis that a rational information processing style would inhibit reckless betting. In Study 1 (N= 41), we conducted an exploratory study on the relationship between trait variables including information processing style, and reckless betting. An online experiment of between-subjects comparison design was conducted, where the number of wins and losses in the 1st session of a gambling task was manipulated to induce reckless betting. Participants’ traits, affective states, and recklessness during the gambling task were measured. The results indicated that a rational information processing style inhibited reckless betting by moderating the effect of positive affect on reckless betting. In Study 2 (N= 77), we determined the sample size based on the effect size observed in Study 1 and attempted to replicate Study 1 with a simplified experimental procedure. In addition, Study 3 (N= 75) and Study 4 (N= 76) attempted to replicate Study 1 with variations on the time pressure placed on the task. The results, however, were not consistent with those of Study 1. We discuss the inconsistencies between these results in terms of situational factors specific to online experiments and goal-oriented changes in behavioral norms.