[1]王磊,张晶轩,杨国愉,等.不同信息框架下军校学员特质焦虑及人格特征对风险决策的影响[J].第三军医大学学报,2016,38(20):2236-2239.
 Wang Lei,Zhang Jingxuan,Yang Guoyu,et al.Effects of trait anxiety and personality characteristics on risk decision making under different frames of information[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2016,38(20):2236-2239.
点击复制

不同信息框架下军校学员特质焦虑及人格特征对风险决策的影响(/HTML )
分享到:

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2016年第20期
页码:
2236-2239
栏目:
医学心理学
出版日期:
2016-10-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effects of trait anxiety and personality characteristics on risk decision making under different frames of information
作者:
王磊张晶轩杨国愉杨梦滔吴高杰王皖曦赵梦雪王立菲杨春丽王菲菲徐文佳
第三军医大学:心理学院军人发展与教育心理学教研室,学员旅十三营
Author(s):
Wang LeiZhang JingxuanYang GuoyuYang MengtaoWu GaojieWang WanxiZhao MengxueWang LifeiYang ChunliWang FeifeiXu Wenjia

Department of Military Developmental and Educational Psychology of Armyman, College of Psychology, Battalion , Cadet Brigade, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing,400038,China)

关键词:
信息框架特质焦虑人格特征风险决策
Keywords:
information frame trait anxiety personality characteristics risk decision making
分类号:
R395.2;R749.72;R821.2
文献标志码:
A
摘要:

目的   探讨不同信息框架下军校学员特质焦虑及人格特征对风险决策的影响。方法采用自编的风险决策问卷、艾森克人格问卷(EPQ)和状态特质焦虑量表(STAI),对某军校403名学员进行团体心理测评,分析不同信息框架下风险决策的差异。结果①正性信息框架下32.18%的被试倾向于保守,67.82%的被试倾向于冒险;负性信息框架下20.63%的被试倾向于保守,79.37%的被试倾向于冒险,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。男性在负性信息框架下80.71%的被试倾向冒险,而在正性信息框架下仅有67.55%的被试倾向冒险,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);女性两组之间决策差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。②正性信息框架下,高神经质的被试24.19%倾向于保守方案,75.81%倾向于冒险;低神经质的被试有46.00%倾向于保守,54.00%的被试倾向于冒险,两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。负性信息框架下,两组间比较,决策差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05);无论正性还是负性信息框架,内外向人格的风险决策差异均没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论负面框架下军校学员个体更倾向于冒险决策,正性信息框架下高神经质人群倾向于冒险决策。

Abstract:

Objective         To investigate the effects of trait anxiety and personality characteristics on risk decision making under different frames of information. Methods        A self-designed risk decision questionnaire, Eysenck personality questionnaire(EPQ) and the state-trait anxiety inventory(STAI) were surveyed in 403 subjects from a military university. The subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, the positive frame group (n=202) and the negative frame group (n=189), through the cluster sampling. A Chi-square test was conducted between the 2 groups for statistical analysis. Results         ①Under positive information frame, 32.18% of the subjects tended to be conservative and 67.82% of them were prone to be risky. Under negative information frame, the percentage of being conservative and risky were 20.63% and 79.37%.The difference between the 2 information frames was statistically significant(P<0.05). Under negative information frame,80.71% of men chose to take risks, but it dropped to 67.55% under positive frame information. The decision change under the 2 information frames was significantly different in men (P<0.05), but not in women. ②Under positive information frame, 24.19% of high neurotic subjects were conservative, while 75.81% of them were risky. For low neurotic subjects, the percentage were 46.00% and 54.00%. The difference in decision making under different information frames were significant (P<0.05). Under negative information frame, there was no significant difference between the high and low neurotic groups. Moreover, in either frame, no significant difference in decision making was found between the introverted and extroverted personalities. Conclusion        Under negative information frame, the military individuals are more likely to take risks.Under positive information frame, subjects with high neurotic personality are more related to risk decision making behavior.

参考文献/References:

[1]KahnemanD, TverskyA.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica, 1979,  47 ( 47) : 263-291.
[2]Levin I P,  Gaeth G J,  Schreiber J,  et al.  A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes,  Individual Differences,  and Independence of Types of Effects[J].  Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,  2002,  88(1):411-429.  DOI:10. 1006/obhd. 2001. 2983
[3]Nicholson N,  Soane E,  Fenton-O’Creevy M,  et al.  Domain specific risk taking and personality[J].  Journal of Risk Research,  2005,  8(8): 157-176.
[4]张银玲,  苗丹民,  罗正学, 等.  正负信息框架下人格特征对决策的影响作用[J].  医学争鸣, 2006, 27(4):363-366.  DOI:10. 3321/j. issn:1000-2790. 2006. 04. 023
[5]周路平,  孔令明.  316名大学生特质焦虑及性别差异与风险回避的关系[J].  中国心理卫生杂志,  2010,  24(2):153-156. DOI:10. 3969/j. issn. 1000-6729. 2010. 02. 018
[6]龚耀先. 修订艾森克个性问卷手册[M]. 长沙:湖南医学院, 1986:10-13.
[7]张作记. 行为医学量表手册[M]. 北京:中华医学电子音像出版社, 2005:212.
[8]杨国愉, 张大均, 王立菲, 等. 中国青年军人特质焦虑的发展特点[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2013, 35(20):2143-2146. DOI:10. 16016/j. 1000-5404. 2013. 20. 008
[9]何立波. 军校人文精神现状及培育研究[J]. 学理论, 2014(1):197-198. DOI:10. 3969/j. issn.  10022589.  2014. 01. 085
[10]刘海鹰, 张启军. 微文化精粹融于军校学员社会主义核心价值观教育探究[J]. 船舶职业教育, 2015, 3(2): 68-70.
[11]王晶,  陈晓楠,  梁媛, 等.  不同信息框架对军校医学专业大学生决策行为影响的研究[J].  西北医学教育,  2012(1):130-131. DOI:10. 3969/j. issn. 10062769. 2012. 01. 049
[12]罗萍,  锁军丽,  杨红旗, 等.  不同信息框架对临床护士决策行为的影响[J].  护理学杂志:综合版,  2012,  27(5):17-18. DOI:10. 3870/hlxzz. 2012. 05. 017
[13]刘涵慧,  周洪雨,  车宏生.  人格特征对不同类型框架下决策的影响[J].  心理科学,  2010(4):823-826.
[14]Wang X T. Framingeffects:Dynamics and task domains[J]. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process,  1996, 68(2):145-157.

相似文献/References:

[1]林国志,邓光辉,经旻,等.低特质焦虑大学生在有无诱发恐惧情绪下对情绪面孔的注意偏向[J].第三军医大学学报,2010,32(01):67.
 Lin Guozhi,Deng Guanghui,Jing Min,et al.Attentional bias of low trait anxiety college students with or without fear-induced mood to emotional faces[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2010,32(20):67.
[2]曾妍,艾明,陈建梅,等.焦虑抑郁障碍共病患者的特质焦虑与其血清BDNF水平的相关性研究[J].第三军医大学学报,2011,33(18):1967.
 Zeng Yan,Ai Ming,Chen Jianmei,et al.Correlation between trait anxiety and serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor level in patients with combined anxiety and depression[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2011,33(20):1967.
[3]杨国愉,张大均,王立菲,等.中国青年军人特质焦虑的发展特点[J].第三军医大学学报,2013,35(20):2143.
 Yang Guoyu,Zhang Dajun,Wang Lifei,et al.Developmental characteristics of trait anxiety in Chinese young soldiers[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2013,35(20):2143.
[4]王菲菲,徐文佳,谢守蓉,等.高原军人抑郁、焦虑与情绪调节方式的关系[J].第三军医大学学报,2017,39(15):1537.
 WANG Feifei,XU Wenjia,XIE Shourong,et al.Relationship of emotion regulation types with depression and anxiety in military personnel in high altitude[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2017,39(20):1537.

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-10-24