1 INET GATE VIP00101 01/01/16 21:47 題名：Tsukuba Decision Research Seminar Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:44:58 +0900 From: Kazuhisa Takemura To: CGSTDM list 第２回　Tsukuba　Decision　Research　（TDR)　Seminar　のお知らせ 　CGSTDMメイリングリスト会員の皆様 　　新年明けましておめでとうございます。 　　さて、第２回のセミナーを行うことになりました。 　スエーデンからの訪問研究者Ole　Boe氏が発表して 　くださる予定です。短縮した内容の発表は２７日の東大 　でのセミナーでもされる予定です。 　　よろしくお願いします。 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　TDRグループ　中村　豊　（代表） 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　竹村和久　（幹事） 日時　：2001年1月26日（金）　15時15分-16時45分 場所：　第3学群F棟3F1136 （参考）　http://www.tsukuba.ac.jp/dMenuBar/access.html 講演者：Ole　Boe　氏（スウェーデン国立イエテボリ大学心理学研究所助教授） 司会者：竹村和久 演題：Factors affecting integration of outcomes of concurrent decisions. ＜Abstract＞ When outcomes of concurrent decisions are evaluated, they may either be integrated or segregated. The present studies investigated when and how integration occurs. The aim of Study I was to investigate whether an integration principle (the loss-sensitivity principle) could be extended to account for the integration of outcomes of concurrent decisions. This principle has been shown to hold for integration of prior outcomes with future outcomes. It was then expected that only the loss outcomes of concurrent decisions would be integrated. The two experiments conducted in Study I validated previous results concerning integration of prior outcomes, but did not show that the principle generalized to integration of the outcomes of concurrent decisions. Participants were in both experiments presented with fictitious non-context gambles. Study II was conducted with the primary aim of investigating how casually relatedness, in the form of means-end relations between consumer products, affects integration. Another aim was to investigate the effect of uncertainty. The results showed that participants integrate means-end related alternatives as well as that uncertainty of outcomes of concurrent decisions counteracts integration. The experiment conducted in Study III demonstrated an attentional bias in that causally related outcomes of concurrent decisions are not evaluated and therefore not chosen although more attractive than single outcomes. Finally, Study IV further investigated the attentional bias. Participants were asked to make fictitious choices of stores located at different distances where they could purchase the same consumer products at different prices. Attitudes toward driving were independently assessed by means of a questionnaire. A supporting finding was that participants with a more positive attitude toward driving chose more frequently to drive to stores within walking distance than participants with a less positive attitude towards driving who more frequently chose to walk to stores at driving distances.