Ocena ryzyka udziału w wyborach do Sejmu dla partii politycznych

• Autorzy: Joanna Sokołowska

Warianty tytułu

Evaluation of Risk for Political Parties in a Multi-party Parliamentary Election

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Celem badania było wykazanie, że ocena ryzyka zależy nie tylko od takich aspektów sytuacji ryzykownej, jak prawdopodobieństwa i wielkości wypłat pozytywnych i negatywnych, ale także od punktów odniesienia, np. status quo czy cel. Punkty odniesienia decydują o tym, na których aspektach sytuacji skupia się uwaga oceniającego. Temat analizowano w kontekście zapowiadanych wyborów do Sejmu. W Eksperymencie 1, 67 studentów psychologii i młodych informatyków oceniało ryzyko związane z wyborami dla 6 partii politycznych reprezentowanych w Sejmie. Ponieważ partie miały różne status quo i inne cele polityczne, to oczekiwano różnego wpływu aspektów pozytywnych (np. uzyskanie bezwzględnej większości sejmowej) i negatywnych (np. prawdopodobieństwo utraty mandatów) na ocenę ryzyka dla różnych partii. Eksperyment 2 to powtórzenie Eksperymentu 1 w innym czasie z udziałem młodych działaczy partii politycznych (PO i PiS). W eksperymentach nie stwierdzono związku między zwiększeniem lub zmniejszeniem liczby manadatów a oceną ryzyka. Zaobserwowano wyraźny związek między oceną ryzyka a prawdopodobieństwem utraty reprezentacji sejmowej (Eksp. 2). Związek ten nie występował jednak w przypadku ocen ryzyka dla partii, dla których respondenci nisko ocenili prawdopodobieństwo utraty reprezentacji (Eksp. 1). W przypadku tych partii oceny ryzyka były związane z szansami na realizację celów politycznych (np. uzyskanie absolutnej większości czy zwiększenie potencjału koalicyjnego). (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The study discussed here is aimed at determining how reference points, such as status quo and targets, affect salience of different aspects of a situation in evaluation of its riskiness. Examples of such aspects are probabilities and amounts of loss and win. The upcoming election to the Polish Parliament was used to investigate this issue. In Experiment 1, 67 participants - students of psychology and young adults graduated in computer sciences - evaluated risk related to the upcoming parliamentary election for six political parties represented in the Parliament. Since these six parties had different status quos and political targets, one might expect that the relative input of negative (e.g. the probability to loose seats) and positive (e.g. the probability to win the absolute majority) aspects of the situation to risk judgment would differ between parties. Experiment 2 was a repetition of Experiment 1 in a different time and with respondents, who were young people politically involved. In both experiments, no relation was found between the expected change in seats' number and riskiness. In Experiment 2, there was a salient relation between perceived risk and the probability to lose a parliamentary representation. However, in Exp. 1 such relation was significant only for the parties, which were endangered by such possibility. For the other parties perceived risk was related to their political targets, i.e. the probability to win the absolute majority or to form a governmental coalition. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Ocena ryzyka; Wybory parlamentarne; Partie polityczne

EN

Risk assessment; Parliamentary election; Political parties

• Czasopismo: Decyzje
• Rocznik: 2010
• Numer: nr 13
• Strony: 85--106

Twórcy

autor

Joanna Sokołowska

• Instytut Psychologii PAN

Bibliografia

• Boon, S.D. I Holmes, J.G. 1999. Interpersonal risk and the evaluation of transgressions in close relationships. "Personal Relationships" 6: 151-168.
• Brachinger, H.W., Weber, M. 1997. Risk as a primitive: A survey of measures of perceived risk. "OR Spektrum" 19: 235-250.
• Brandstatter, E. Giegerenzer, G., Hertwig, R. 2006. The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices Without Trade-Offs. "Psychological Review" 113: 409-432.
• Budescu, D.V., K.M. Kuhn, K.M. Kramer, T. Johnson. 2002. Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles. "Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes" 88: 748-768.
• Coombs, C.H., Lehner E.P. 1984. Conjoint design analysis of the bilinear model: an application to judgments of risk. "Journal of Mathematical Psychology" 28: 1-42.
• Copeland, P.V., Cuccia, A.D. 2002. Multiple determinants of framing referents in tax reporting and compliance. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes" 88: 499-526.
• Deephouse, D.L., Wiseman, R.M. 2000. Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations. "Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization" 42: 463-482.
• Du, N., Budescu, D.V., 2005. The effect of imprecise probabilities and outcomes in evaluating investment options. "Management Science" 1-13.
• Fishburn, P.C. 1982. Foundations of risk measurement: II. Effects of gains on risk. "Journal of Mathematical Psychology" 25: 226-242.
• French, D.P., Senior, V., Weinman, J., Marteau, T. 2001. Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review. "Psychology and Health" 16: 77-98
• Harre, N., Randta, T., Houkamau, C. ND. 2004. An examination of the actor-observer effect in young drivers: Attributions for their own and their friends" risky driving. "Journal of Applied Social Psychology" 34: 806-824
• Heath, C., Larrick, L.P., Wu, G. 1999. Goals as reference points. "Cognitive Psychology" 38: 79-109.
• Huber, O., Wider, R., Huber, O.W. 1997. Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. "Acta Psychologica" 95: 15-29.
• Keller, L.R, Sarin, R.K., Weber, M. 1986. Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes" 38: 114-130.
• Kuhn, K., D.V., Budescu, J.R., Hershey, K.M., Kramer, A.K., Rantilla. 1999. Attribute tradeoffs in low probability/high consequence risks: The joint effects of dimension preference and vagueness. "Risk Decision Policy" 4: 32-45.
• Kuhn, K.M., D.V., Budescu. 1996. The relative importance of probabilities, outcomes, and vagueness in hazard risk decisions. "Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes" 68: 301-317.
• Langer, T., Weber, M. 2001. Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portofolios. "Management Science" 47: 716-733.
• Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. 1971. Reversals of preference between bid and choices in gambling decisions. "Journal of Experimental Psychology" 89: 46-55.
• Lopes, L.L. 1996. When time is of the essence: Averaging, aspiration and the short run. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process" 65: 179-189.
• Lopes, L.L. 1990. Re-modeling risk aversion: A comparison of Bernoullian and rank dependent value approaches. W: G.M. von Fuerstenberg (ed.). Acting under uncertainty: Multidisciplinary conceptions. Boston: Kluwer, s. 267-299.
• Lopes, L.L. 1984. Risk and distributional inequality. "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance" 10: 465-485.
• Lopes, L.L., Oden, G.C. 1999. The role of aspiration level in risky choice: a comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. "Journal of Mathematical Psychology" 43: 286-313.
• MacCrimmon, K.R., Stanbury, W.T., Wehrung, D.A. 1980. Real money lotteries: A study of ideal risk, context effects, and simple processes. In: T.S. Wallsten, Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, s. 155-177.
• March, J.G., Shapira, Z. 1992. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. "Psychological Review" 99: 172-183.
• March, J.G., Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspective on risk and risk taking. "Management Science" 33: 1404-1418.
• Mezias, S.J., Chen, Y., Murphy, P.R. 2002. Aspiration-level adaptation in an American financial services organization: A field study. "Management Science" 48: 1285-1300.
• Payne, J.W. 2005. It is whether you win or lose: The importance of the overall probabilities of winning or loosing in risky choice. "Journal of Risk and Uncertainty" 30: 5-19.
• Payne, J.W. 1975. Relation of perceived risk to preferences among gambles. "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance" 104: 86-94.
• Payne, J.W., Laugham, D.J., Crum, R. 1981. Further tests of aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. "Management Science" 27: 953-958.
• Payne, J.W., Laugham D.J., Crum R. 1980. Transaction of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. "Management Science" 26: 1039-1060.
• Shapira, Z. 1994. Risk Taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Slovic, P. 1993. Perception of environmental hazards: Psychological perspective (pp. 223-247). W: T. Garling i R.G. Golledge (red.). Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches, Elsevier Publishers B.V.
• Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. "Science" 236 (4799): 280-285.
• Slovic, P. 1967. The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble. "Psychometric Science" 9 (4): 223-4.
• Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. 1968. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. "Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph: 78 (3, Pt. 2).
• Sokołowska, J. 2006. Risk Perception and Acceptance: One Process or Two? "Experimental Psychology" 53: 247-259.
• Sulivan, K., Kida, T. 1995. The effect of multiple reference points and prior gains and losses on managers" risky decision making. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process" 64: 76-83.
• Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulaative representation of uncertainty. "Journal of Risk and Uncertainty" 5: 297-323.
• Weber, E.U., Bottom, W.P. 1989. Axiomatic measures of perceived risk: some tests and extensions. "Journal of Behavioral Decision Making" 2 (2): 113-131.