齐当别视觉下的出行方式偏好反转研究

交通运输系统工程与信息 ›› 2018, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (4): 130-134.

齐当别视觉下的出行方式偏好反转研究

张年¹，罗霞^*1，邓燕²

1. 西南交通大学交通运输与物流学院，成都 610031；2. 成都石室中学数学教研组，成都 610000

收稿日期:2018-02-11 修回日期:2018-03-19 出版日期:2018-08-25 发布日期:2018-08-27
作者简介:张年(1989-)，男，四川内江人，博士生.
基金资助:
交通运输部信息化技术研究项目/ Information Technology Research of Ministry of Transport(2014364X14040).

Preference Reversals Phenomenon of Travel Mode under the Equate-to-differentiate Interpretation

ZHANG Nian¹, LUO Xia¹, DENG Yan²

1. School of Transportation and Logistics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China; 2. Mathematics Staff Room, Shishi High School, Chengdu 610000, China

Received:2018-02-11 Revised:2018-03-19 Online:2018-08-25 Published:2018-08-27

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在西南交大两校区校园交通车和119路公交的出行调查中发现，出行者对交通方式偏好和评价存在不一致的现象，并通过谨慎控制调查对偏好反转现象的存在进行了实证.在齐当别的视角下建立起选择支属性的维度判断体系进行匹配心理实验，检验结果发现匹配任务与偏好显著相关，齐当别理论能够对偏好反转现象进行解释.第2次实验通过改变任务顺序和选择支整体期望，验证了齐当别理论可对偏好进行预测，偏好选择是齐当别过程，而不是多维度整合过程.第3次实验通过2组风险场景下的对照，发现概率的引入并不必然提高决策度量水平，偏好反转现象也并非由于个体偏好真实发生了变化，而是由于偏好和评价是不同的策略过程，属性维度差的不同判断结果导致了偏好与评价的不一致.

关键词: 城市交通, 偏好反转, 齐当别理论, 出行方式, 心理实验

Abstract:

In the travel investigation for school bus and 119 road bus between the two campus of Southwest Jiaotong University，we found the inconformity between the preferences and evaluation for these two travel mode. Through experimental design of cautious control, the existence of preference reversal phenomenon is confirmed. Under the equate-to-differentiate interpretation, we establish the judgment dimension system of option attributes, and carry out the psychological experiment of matching task. Test results show that，there is significant relationship between the matching task and preference, and PRP can be explained under the equate-to-differentiate interpretation. Then we change the order of experimental task, proving the preference could be forecasted under the equate-to-differentiate interpretation, and preference is the process of equate-to-differentiate, but not dimension integration. At last, we carry out two groups of experiments under the risk condition, and the results show that probability does not necessarily improve the level of decision-making, and the phenomenon of preference reversal is not due to the fact that preference really reverses, but the different strategic process, and the different judgment results of dimension cause the preference reversals.

Key words: urban traffic, preference reversals, equate-to-differentiate interpretation, travel model, psychological experiment

中图分类号:

U491.1

张年，罗霞，邓燕. 齐当别视觉下的出行方式偏好反转研究[J]. 交通运输系统工程与信息, 2018, 18(4): 130-134.

ZHANG Nian, LUO Xia, DENG Yan. Preference Reversals Phenomenon of Travel Mode under the Equate-to-differentiate Interpretation[J]. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 2018, 18(4): 130-134.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: http://www.tseit.org.cn/CN/abstract/abstract19671.shtml

http://www.tseit.org.cn/CN/Y2018/V18/I4/130

参考文献

[1] GRETHER D M, PLOTT C R. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon[J]. American Economic Review, 1979, 69(4): 623-638.

[2] REILLY R J. Preference reversal: Further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design[J]. American Economic Review, 1982, 72(72): 576-584.

[3] LOOMES G, SUGDEN R. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty[J]. Economic Journal, 1982, 92(368): 805-824.

[4] HOLT C A. Preference reversals and the independence axiom[J]. American Economic Review, 1986, 76(3): 508-515.

[5] STARMER C, SUGDEN R. Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation[J]. American Economic Review, 1991, 81(4): 971-978.

[6] SCHMIDT U, HEY J D. Are preference reversals errors? An experimental investigation[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2004, 29(3): 207-218.

[7] GOLDSTEIN W M, EINHORN H J. Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena[J]. Psychological Review, 1987, 94(2): 236-254.

[8] TVERSKY A, SATTATH S, SLOVIC P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice[J]. Psychological Review, 1988, 95(3): 371-384.

[9] MELLERS B A, ORDÓÑEZ L D, BIRNBAUM M H. A change-of-process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making[J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 1992, 52(52): 331-369.

[10] BIRNBAUM M H, COFFEY G, MELLERS B A, et al. Utility measurement: Configural- weight theory and the judge's point of view[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 1992, 18 (2): 331-346.

[11] SCHMELTZER C, CAVERNI J P, WARGLIEN M. How does preference reversal appear and disappear? Effects of the evaluation mode[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2004, 17(5): 395-408.

[12] LI S. Preference reversal: A new look at an old problem[J]. Psychological Record, 2006, 56(3): 411-428.

[13] 常光伟, 王青春, 阴国恩. 决策任务反应模式对偏好反转的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2011, 9(3): 176-180. [CHANG G W, WANG Q C, YIN G E. The effect of decision task response pattern on preference reversal[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2011, 9(3): 176-180.]

[14] 辛聚珊. 风险态度、概率水平对不同决策角色诱发的偏好反转的影响[D]. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2013. [XIN J S. The effects of risk attitude and probability level on preference reversal caused by different decisionmaking roles[D]. Changchun: East China Normal University, 2013.]

[15] 李纾. 决策心理: 齐当别之道[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2015. [LI S. An equate-differentiate way of decision-making[M]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 2015.]