CAJ | 학술논문

在没有轮次限制的轮盘赌任务中考察了先前一轮及多轮的决策结果对后续决策风险偏好的影响模式，结果表明：（1）无论盈亏，前一轮获益或损失的程度越大后一轮的风险偏好越大；（2）先前获益后，接下来的下注投入的金额小于先前一轮的获益金额，先前损失后，接下来的下注的潜在获益金额大于先前一轮的损失金额。实验结果定量地验证和拓展了私房钱效应（house money effect）和保本效应（break even effect），在此基础上归纳出了动态重复决策中“决策前景与先前结果合并后规避损失”的决策标准，即当决策情景具有重复性且可以自由制定决策方案时，决策的标准是使得先前一次的获益（或损失）与下一次决策的潜在损失（或获益）合并后可以规避损失。实验结果还表明决策者仅合并最近一次的先前结果而不会合并先前连续获益或损失的结果。
재몰유륜차한제적륜반도임무중고찰료선전일륜급다륜적결책결과대후속결책풍험편호적영향모식，결과표명：（1）무론영우，전일륜획익혹손실적정도월대후일륜적풍험편호월대；（2）선전획익후，접하래적하주투입적금액소우선전일륜적획익금액，선전손실후，접하래적하주적잠재획익금액대우선전일륜적손실금액。실험결과정량지험증화탁전료사방전효응（house money effect）화보본효응（break even effect），재차기출상귀납출료동태중복결책중“결책전경여선전결과합병후규피손실”적결책표준，즉당결책정경구유중복성차가이자유제정결책방안시，결책적표준시사득선전일차적획익（혹손실）여하일차결책적잠재손실（혹획익）합병후가이규피손실。실험결과환표명결책자부합병최근일차적선전결과이불회합병선전련속획익혹손실적결과。
Thaler and Johnson （1990） proposed the“house money effect”（risk taking increases after a win） and“break even effect”（risk taking increases after a loss when there’s a chance to break even） to describe people’s behavior in dynamic decision making. Obviously these phenomena exceeded the explanation of prospect theory. However, in the study by Thaler and Johnson （1990）, the decision frame was manipulated in the paradigm of two-stage gamble choice, so that the effects of prior outcomes on the risk preference in dynamic repeated decision making scenarios remain a problem. In the present study, based on the paradigm of Demaree （2012）, we would like to reaffirm the theoretical expectations of “house money effect” and “break even effect”and analyze the decision pattern in the roulette game scenario quantitatively. In order to constitute a dynamic repeated decision scenario with favorable ecological validity, a simulated roulette game was developed. Participants were asked to choose between options which stood for a range of numbers on the roulette （e.g., from 18 to 36） and decide the amount of wager to put on. After the roulette rolling, a specific number was given. If the number fell in the range of the option, the corresponding amount of“money”（the token in the game） would be added to the bankroll of the participant, otherwise the amount of money will be considered to be lost. As long as the bankroll had not reached zero, the participant was free to decide whether to continue the game or stop the game to cash the bankroll. The amount of bankroll, wager and the chosen option in every trial was logged for the analyses of the prior outcome and risk preference. The results showed that the participant’s risk preference increased with the absolute value of preceding outcome, no matter it was a gain or a loss. Moreover, after a preceding win, the wager devoted into next trial was smaller than the profit of the last trial, which was consistent with the “house money effect”. After a preceding loss, the potential profit in the next trial was larger than the loss of the last trial, which was consistent with the“break even effect”. The present study suggests that when the decision task is repetitive and flexible, the strategy of the decision maker would be to avoid loss after the combination of previous profit （or loss） and the potential loss （or profit）. The decision process in the presence of prior gain is as a kind of“squander”, with“no loss”as the bottom line. Whereas in the presence of prior loss, the decision could be seen as a kind of“fighting”which aims at“no loss”. These results could be inspiring in predicting the way people react in risk decision. The main effort of subsequent study would be the probing into scenarios which would be more ecological and representative, such as decision in the stock market.