博碩士論文 etd-0718107-214439 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 許瓊文(Chiung-Wen Hsu) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 資訊管理學系研究所(Information Management)
畢業學位 博士(Ph.D.) 畢業時期 95學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 應用眼動儀於決策偏誤與資訊注意力之研究
論文名稱(英) Applying the Eye-Tracking Approach to the Study of Information Attention and Decision Bias
檔案
  • etd-0718107-214439.pdf
  • 本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
    請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
    論文使用權限

    電子論文:校內一年後公開,校外永不公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/128
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5663 次,被下載 42 次
    摘要(中) 本研究目的為探討決策偏誤下,決策者的資訊注意力;此外,加入決策者個人特質(認知需求、數學能力)以及外在環境(深度思考)的探討,深入討論決策者資訊注意力的動態變化。本研究對於決策資訊注意力的探究主要基植於Kahneman 和Tversky (1979)所提出的展望理論(Prospect Theory)與Fiske和Neuberg (1990)的印象形成理論( Impression Formation Theory ),在此兩項理論的導引下,探究決策者在框架偏誤下的資訊注意力。有關資訊注意力的衡量,本研究使用眼動儀(500 Hz EyeLink II)記錄決策者眼動情況。
    研究結果發現,正負框架會影響決策者產生框架效應,而決策者的認知需求能力與數學能力不會對框架效應產生調節的效果,此外,決策者進入深度思考後,其框架效應仍不會降低。在資訊注意力方面,決策者投注較多的資訊注意力在負向框架問題上;高認知需求的決策者需要負向框架以及深度思考的驅動,其資訊注意力才會較低認知需求者為多;另外,有關機率與結果區域的注意力方面,在正向框架下,高數學能力的決策者較低數學能力的決策者有較多的機率與結果區域注意力,然而在負向框架下,則無此差異;最後,本研究發現資訊注意力與框架效應無直接關係。此研究結果能解開決策者心靈黑盒子之謎,以更豐富過去傳統的決策偏誤研究結果。
    摘要(英) Based on the Prospect Theory by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and the Impression Formation Theory by Fiske and Neuberg (1990), this research examines decision makers’ information attention for subjects who are required to judge under framing. The eye-tracking technology is applied to evaluate decision makers’ information attention. The results indicate that, as predicted by the Prospect Theory, the effect of framing is observed in both positive and negative framed conditions. Overall, the study finds that subjects in negative frames exert more effort in information attention than those in positive frames. Concerning the effect of the need for cognition (NC) trait in negative framing conditions, the finding shows that subjects who have a higher level of NC exert more effort in information attention than the low NC subjects. In addition, subjects with high a higher level of math ability focus exert more attentional effort on possible outcomes and probabilities in positive framing but not in negative framing. Finally, the result shows that there is no relationship between information attention and the framing effect, indicating that the framing effect is resilient to the influence of information attention effort induced by both the personality traits like NC and the mechanism like deep thought. Collectively, these results pave the way for future research to study cognitive processes under framing so that we can understand how different information representations may increase or lessen the effect of framing.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 決策偏誤
  • 框架效應
  • 認知歷程
  • 眼動儀
  • 知覺歷程
  • 資訊注意力
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • decision bias
  • framing effect
  • eye-tracking
  • information attention
  • perceptual process
  • cognitive process
  • 論文目次 目錄
    第一章 緒論 1
    第一節 研究背景與動機 1
    第二節 研究目的與研究貢獻 6
    一、研究目的 6
    二、研究貢獻 7
    第二章 文獻探討與假設推論 9
    第一節 決策偏誤與框架效應 9
    第二節 決策偏誤認知研究 14
    一、決策偏誤與腦神經研究 15
    二、決策偏誤與眼動儀研究 16
    第三節 決策偏誤與印象判斷形成 19
    第四節 資訊注意力與眼動衡量指標 22
    第五節 文獻探討與研究假說 24
    一、正負框架類型 24
    二、個人特質 26
    三、深度思考 31
    四、資訊注意力與框架效應 36
    第三章 研究設計 39
    第一節 研究架構 39
    第二節 變數的定義與操作化 40
    一、自變數 40
    二、應變數 41
    三、干擾變數 42
    第三節 研究方法 43
    一、研究對象 44
    二、實驗刺激物 44
    三、實驗工具 45
    四、實驗設計 46
    五、實驗程序 48
    六、資料篩選與分析 50
    第四章 資料分析 51
    第一節 一般思考情境 51
    一、樣本描述 51
    二、樣本個人特質分類 51
    三、一般思考下之框架效應 52
    四、決策知覺歷程之資訊注意力 55
    第二節 深度思考情境 61
    一、樣本描述 61
    二、樣本個人特質分類 61
    三、深度思考下之框架效應 62
    四、決策知覺歷程之資訊注意力 64
    第三節 資訊注意力與框架效應 69
    第四節 其他眼動資料探索性分析 77
    第五章 結論與討論 87
    第一節 結論 87
    一、框架效應 87
    二、框架類型與資訊注意力 88
    三、個人特質與資訊注意力 90
    四、資訊注意力與框架效應 94
    第二節 研究限制 96
    第三節 未來研究方向 96
    參考文獻 98
    附錄 107
    圖目錄
    圖1-1. 傳統框架效應研究 2
    圖1-2. 決策偏誤知覺歷程研究 6
    圖2-1. 展望理論 (Prospect theory) 13
    圖2-2. 傳統框架效應認知歷程研究 14
    圖2-3. 近年框架效應認知歷程研究 15
    圖2-4. 本研究框架效應知覺歷程研究 22
    圖3-1. 研究架構 40
    圖3-2. 眼動資料分析區域 42
    圖3-3. 實驗刺激物畫面 45
    圖3-4. 本研究實驗流程 48
    圖3-5. 本研究眼動資料分析目標區域 50
    圖4-1. 一般思考下,四個實驗問題綜合之選項比例 53
    圖4-2. 一般思考下,四個實驗問題個別之選項比例 54
    圖4-3. 深度思考下,四個實驗問題綜合之選項比例 63
    圖4-4. 深度思考下,四個實驗問題個別之選項比例 63
    圖4-5. 一般思考下,四題實驗題資訊注意力 70
    圖4-6. 一般思考下,資訊注意力(凝視次數)與框架效應 72
    圖4-7. 深度思考下,四題實驗題資訊注意力 73
    圖4-8. 深度思考下,凝視次數與框架效應 74
    圖4-9. 一般思考下,選項注意與選項結果 80
    圖4-10(a). 一般思考正框架下,選項注意與框架效應 80
    圖4-10(b). 一般思考負框架下,選項注意與框架效應 81
    圖4-11(a). 深度思考正框架下,選項注意與框架效應 81
    圖4-11(b). 深度思考負框架下,選項注意與框架效應 82
    表目錄
    表2-1. 假說推論與文獻依據 37
    表3-1. 本研究實驗組別 47
    表3-2. 第一、二組實驗題目(一般思考程序) 48
    表3-3. 第三、四組實驗題目(深度思考程序) 48
    表4-1. 一般思考:高低認知需求差異檢定 52
    表4-2. 一般思考:高低數學能力人數統計 52
    表4-3. 一般思考:認知需求、數學能力與框架效應 54
    表4-4. 一般思考:正負框架整體資訊注意力比較 55
    表4-5(a). 一般思考:正框架下,認知需求與整體資訊注意力 56
    表4-5(b). 一般思考:負框架下,認知需求與整體資訊注意力 56
    表4-6(a). 不同認知需求下,高低數學能力對機率與結果區域注視率的影響 58
    表4-6(b). 不同認知需求下,高低數學能力對機率與結果區域回視率的影響 58
    表4-7. 框架類型與數學能力交互作用對機率與結果區域資訊注意力影響 59
    表4-8(a). 正負框架下,不同數學能力的機率與結果區域的注視率 60
    表4-8(b). 正負框架下,不同數學能力的機率與結果區域的回視率 60
    表4-9. 深度思考:高低認知需求差異檢定 61
    表4-10. 深度思考:高低數學能力人數統計 62
    表4-11. 深度思考:認知需求、數學能力與框架效應 64
    表4-12. 深度思考:正負框架整體資訊注意力比較 65
    表4-13(a). 深度思考:正框架下,認知需求與整體資訊注意力 66
    表4-13(b). 深度思考:負框架下,認知需求與整體資訊注意力 66
    表4-14(a). 不同認知需求下,思考深度對機率與結果區域的注視率的影響 67
    表4-14(b). 不同認知需求下,思考深度對機率與結果區域的回視率的影響 68
    表4-15. 研究假說驗證結果 74
    表4-16(a). 一般思考下,不同框架類型間確定選項比較 77
    表4-16(b). 一般思考下,不同框架類型間機率選項比較 78
    表4-16(c). 一般思考下,不同框架類型間選項比較 78
    表4-16(d). 一般思考下,不同框架類型下確定與機率選項比較 79
    表4-17(a). 負框架癌症問題五位受測者口語資料 82
    表4-17(b). 負框架工廠問題五位受測者口語資料 84
    表4-18. 受測者口語分析與眼動資料 85
    表5-1(a). 一般思考正框架,認知需求與凝視次數 91
    表5-1(b). 一般思考負框架,認知需求與凝視次數 91
    表5-1(c). 深度思考正框架,認知需求與凝視次數 91
    表5-1(d). 深度思考負框架,認知需求與凝視次數 91
    參考文獻 Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203.
    Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., & Susser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypical thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621-632.
    Bottom, W. P., & Studt, A. (1994). Framing effects and the distributive aspect of integrative bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 459-474.
    Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Assessment, 48, 306-307.
    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.
    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
    Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210-224.
    Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001 ). Learning new word meanins from context: A study on eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1 ), 225-235.
    Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 61-75.
    Christensen, C., Heckerling, P., Mackesy-Amiti, M. E., Bernstein, L. M., & Elstein, A. S. (1995 ). Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 169-180.
    Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journla of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-284.
    Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as Interpretation Systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
    Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A., & Damasio, A. (1994). The return of Phineas Gage: clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient Science, 264(5162), 1102-1105.
    Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264-277.
    Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 496-510.
    Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: your money or you life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 355-373.
    Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9, 103-116.
    Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: the impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
    Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes : influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1-74.
    Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 253-282.
    Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399-429.
    Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2000 ). Attention and risk attitude: Contingent focus model of decision framing. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (3/4), 269.
    Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2003). Contingent focus model of Decision Framing nuder Risk Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 67, 51-67.
    Gärling, T., & Romanus, J. (1997 ). Integration and segregation of prior outcomes in risky decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 289-296.
    Goleman, D. (1985 ). Vital lies, simple truths: the psychology of self-deception. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H., & Just, M. (2005). The framing effect and risky decision: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(11), 1-20.
    Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends Cognition Science , 6(12), 517-523.
    Hair, Anderson, J. R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. NJ: Presentice Hall.
    Hansen, D. E., & Helgeson, J. G. (1996). The effects of statistical training on choice heuristics in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 41-57.
    Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987 ). Social cognition and social perception. . Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369-425.
    Hodgkinson, G. P., Brown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking the frame: an analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 977-985.
    Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision (Vol. 2nd Edition): Wiley-Interscience Publication.
    Huber, O. (1983). Decision making as a problem solving process. In B.Brehmer, H.Jungermann, P. Lourens & G.Sevon (Eds.), New Directions in Research on Decision Making (pp. 109-138). North-Holland: Amsterdam.
    Huber, O., & Seiser, G. (2001). Accounting and convincing: the effect of two types of justification on the decision process. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 69-85.
    Irwin, F. W., & W.A.S., S. (1957). Value, cost and information as determiners of decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 229-235.
    Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. M. Havieland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 417-435). London: Guilford.
    Isen, A. M., & W.Berg, J. (1991). The influence of affect on performance on creative routine tasks. Unpublished Working paper, Johnson Graduate School of Management and Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
    Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31, 394-414.
    Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 1-15.
    Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441-480.
    Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychological of reading and language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Kahn, B. E., & Isen, A. M. (1993). The influence of positive affect on variety seeking among sage, enjoyable products. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 257-270.
    Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
    Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
    Kranzler, J. H., & Pajares, F. (1997). An exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Self-efficacy Scale- Revised. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 215-228.
    Krishnamurthy, P., Carter, P., & Blair, E. (2001). Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 382-399.
    Kuhberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 230-240.
    Kuvaas, B., & Selart, M. (2004). Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 198-207.
    LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77-92.
    Levin, I. P., & Chapman, D. P. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(5), 421-434.
    Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374-378.
    Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429.
    Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171-193.
    Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., & Davis, M. L. (1987). How information frame influences risky decision: between-subjects and within-subject comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 43-54.
    Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., Russo, C. P., & Deldin, P. J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 362-377.
    Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
    Lewicka, M., Czapinski, J., & Peeters, G. (1992). Positive-negative asymmetry or when the heart needs a reason. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 425-435.
    Loke, W. H., & Lau, S. L. L. (1992). Effects of framing and mathematical experience on judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(5), 393-395.
    Luce, M., Bettman, J., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 384-405.
    Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.
    Martino, B. D., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain Science, 313(5787), 684-687.
    Maule, A. J. (1989). Positive and negative decision frames: a verbal protocol analysis of the Asian disease problem of Tversky and Kahneman. In H. Montgomery & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and Structure in Human Decision Making. Chichester: Wiley.
    Maule, A. J. (1995). Framing elaborations and their effects on choice behaviour: A comparison across problem isomorphs and subjects with different levels of expertise. In J.-P. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, F. H. Barron & H. Jungermann (Eds.), Contributions to Decision Research-1 (pp. 281-300). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J. (2003). Framing effect :a analytic-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 610-617.
    Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., & Cooke, A. D. J. (1998). Judgment and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 49, 447-477.
    Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination: attitudes, intentions, and behavior Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
    Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517-522.
    Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34-49.
    Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Anxiety Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 35-47.
    Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making :an information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
    Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Peeters, G., & Czapinske, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluation: the distinction between affective and informational effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33-60). Chichester: Wiley.
    Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 1-16.
    Pinon, A., & T., G. (2004). Effects of mood on adoption of loss frame in risky choice. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 34(5), 1-11.
    Ranyard, R. (1987). Cognitive processes underlying similarity effects in risky choice. Acta Psychologica, 64(11), 25-38.
    Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing : 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
    Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 249-262.
    Roszkowski, M. J., & Snelbecker, G. E. (1990). Effects of 'framing' on measures of risk tolerance: financial planners are not immune. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 237-246.
    Russo, J. E., & Leclerc, F. (1994). An eye-fixation analysis of choice processes for consumer nondurables. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 274-290.
    Russo, J. E., & Rosen, L. D. (1975). An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice. Memory & Cognition, 3(3), 267-276.
    Salvucci, D. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Tracing eye movement protocols with cognitive process models. Paper presented at the The Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ.
    Schwarz, N. (2002). Feelings as information: moods influence judgments and processing strategies. In D. G. T. Gilovich & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 534-547). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 161-199.
    Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415-429.
    Shiomura, K., & Atsumi, A. (2001). Induced mood states and the framing effect: a comparison of systematic and heuristic processing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 609-610.
    Sieck, W., & Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 207-219.
    Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., & Halleran, J. G. (2004). Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 77-93.
    Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (Vol. 2nd. Eds.). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
    Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The Affect Heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 397-421). NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290.
    Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning 4(4), 289-317.
    Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives' perceptual filters: what they notice and how they make sense. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Suppes, P. (1990). Eye-movement models for arithmetic and reading performance. In E. Kowler (Ed.), Eye Movements and their Role in Visual and Cognitive Processes. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing.
    Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86-112.
    Takemura, K. (1993). The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 36-40.
    Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 33-39.
    Takemura, K., Hu, K., & Fujii, S. (2001). Examination of contingent focus model using a method of monitoring information acquisition. Paper presented at the Japan Society for Kansei Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
    Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., & A.Poldrack, R. (2005). Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 34-50.
    Tversky, A. (1972). Choice by elimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9(4), 341-367.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251-278.
    Verplanken, B. (1993). Need for cognition and external information search response to time pressure during decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 238-252.
    Verplanken, B., Hazenberg, P. T., & Palenewen, G. R. (1992). Need for cognition and evernal information search effort. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 128-136.
    Volkmann, F. C. (1986). Human visual suppression. Vision Research, 26, 1401-1416.
    Wang, X. T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31-63.
    Wilson, D. K., Kaplan, R. M., & Schneiderman, L. J. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Social Behaviour, 2, 51-59.
    Wurm-Schaar, M. (1995). Framing and response consistency: The effects of gender and quantitative skills. Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Los Angeles, CA.
    Yang, H.-M., & McConkie, G. W. (1999). Reading Chinese: Some basic eye-movement characteristics. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff & H.-C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 207-222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.
    唐大崙、李天任、蔡政旻 (民94)。喜好與視線軌跡關係初探─以色彩喜好排序作業為例。中華心理學,47(4),339-351。
    唐大崙、莊賢智 (民94)。 由眼球追蹤法探索電子報版面中圖片位置對注意力分佈之影響。廣告學研究, 24, 89-104。
    閆國利 (2007)。 顏色與圖形認知。 Retrieved 2007/6/30 from http://www.uespace.com/post/51.html
    口試委員
  • 陳鴻基 - 召集委員
  • 林信惠 - 委員
  • 林子銘 - 委員
  • 蔡瑞明 - 委員
  • 郭峰淵 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2007-06-24 繳交日期 2007-07-18

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫