Simulation research on group subjective probability deviationfrom a perspective of death paradox

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.005

Abstract

Abstract: In order to study formation and evolution of group subjective probability deviation in the process of safe production, a CA model of individual subjective probability was constructed and simulation experiments were conducted by using Netlogo simulation platform. Then, simulated graphics were compared and analyzed, and hierarchical regression method was used to analyze experiment data. The results show that evolution process of subjective probability of a group is divided into three periods, namely sudden change, fluctuation, and stability. Individual death will lead to a systematic underestimation of subjective probability, and aggravate its difference within the group. Reduction of objective accident probability will also increase difference in subjective probability. However, an increase in the number of group members helps to reduce such deviation and difference, and promotes a more objective and unified estimation of subjective probability of a group.

Key words: death paradox, subjective probability, cellular automata (CA), group bias, hierarchical regression analysis

CLC Number:

X915.2

ZHANG Yu, QIAO Li, CEN Kang. Simulation research on group subjective probability deviationfrom a perspective of death paradox[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 37-43.

References

[1] 张舒, 史秀志. 安全心理与行为干预的研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011,21(1): 23-31.
ZHANG Shu, SHI Xiuzhi. Study on safety psychology and behavior intervention [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011,21(1): 23-31.
[2] 叶贵, 越宏哲, 杨晶晶,等. 建筑工人认知水平对不安全行为影响仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019,29(9): 36-42.
YE Gui, YUE Hongzhe, YANG Jingjing, et al. Simulation study on influences of construction workers' bounded rational cognition on unsafe behaviors [J].China Safety Science Journal, 2019,29(9): 36-42.
[3] JI Ming, YOU Xuqun, LAN Jijun, et al. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China [J].Safety Science, 2011,49(10): 1 412-1 420.
[4] 李乃文,王春迪,黄敏. 基于Multi-agent的矿工风险感知偏差演化模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015,25(9): 47-52.
LI Naiwen, WANG Chundi, HUANG Min. Multi-agent-based model for evolution of miners' risk perception deviation [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015,25(9): 47-52.
[5] KOUABENAN D R, NGUEUTSA R, MBAYE S. Safety climate, perceived risk, and involvement in safety management [J].Safety Science, 2015,77: 72-79.
[6] 李华强,龚乐,范春梅. 药品安全事件中公众应对行为的形成机制[J]. 公共管理学报, 2019,16(3): 97-107.
LI Huaqiang, GONG Le, FAN Chunmei. The formation mechanism of the public's coping behavior in drug safety events [J].Journal of Public Management, 2019,16(3): 97-107.
[7] TORBJRN R, TROND N. Judgement of transport security, risk sensitivity and travel mode use in urban areas [J]. Sustainability, 2019,11(7): 1-12.
[8] 袁轩, 陈瑶, 袁国常.硐室施工人员风险感知的心理距离模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019,29(5): 31-36.
YUAN Xuan,CHEN Yao,YUAN Guochang.Study on psychological distance model of risk perception of cavern construction workers [J].China Safety Science Journal, 2019,29(5): 31-36.
[9] 余建华,孙丽. 国外风险认知研究:回顾与前瞻 [J]. 灾害学, 2020,35(1): 161-166.
YU Jianhua, SUN Li. A study of foreign risk perception: retrospect and prediction [J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2020,35(1): 161-166.
[10] 向玲,王宝玺,张庆林. 主观概率判断中次可加性的三因素实验研究 [J]. 心理科学, 2007,30(1): 253-255.
XIANG Ling, WANG Baoxi, ZHANG Qinglin. A three-factor experimental study of sub-additivity in subjective probability [J].Psychological Science, 2007,30(1): 253-255.
[11] SHAROT T. The optimism bias [J]. Current Biology, 2011,21(23): 941-945.
[12] POLMAN E, RUSSO J E. Commitment to a developing preference and predecisional distortion of information [J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2012,119(1): 78-88.
[13] 张萍,卢家楣,张敏. 心境对未来事件发生概率判断的影响 [J]. 心理科学, 2012,35(1): 100-104.
ZHANG Ping, LU Jiamei, ZHANG Min. The effect of mood on the probability judgment of future events [J].Psychological Science, 2012,35(1): 100-104.
[14] 段婧,刘永芳,何琪. 决策者角色及相关变量对风险偏好的影响 [J]. 心理学报, 2012,44(3): 369-376.
DUAN Jing, LIU Yongfang, HE Qi. The effects of decision makers' roles and related variables on risk preferences [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012,44(3): 369-376.
[15] WANG Ting, WANG Dashun. Why amazon's ratings might mislead you: the story of herding effects [J]. Big Data, 2014,2(4): 196-204.
[16] 陈庆,何泉,陈广耀,等. 复杂情境下不同角度及思维方式的决策表现差异:决策视角-心理距离的作用 [J]. 心理学报, 2017,49(3): 383-392.
CHEN Qing, HE Quan, CHEN Guangyao, et al. The perspective-distance effect hypothesis:different perspectives and thinking modes lead to different decision-making performance in complex condition [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017,49(3): 383-392.
[17] HILBERT M. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making [J].Psychological Bulletin, 2012,138(2): 211-237.
[18] 邱晓雯,张钦. 决策过程中情感因素影响主观概率估计的实证研究 [J]. 浙江社会科学, 2014(3): 85-89.
[19] SCHWARTZSTEIN J. Selective attention and learning [J]. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2014,12(6): 1 423-1 452.
[20] PACHUR T, SUTER R S, HERTWIG R. How the twain can meet: prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice [J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2017,93: 44-73.
[21] FIEDLER K. Beware of samples! a cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases [J]. Psychological Review, 2000,107(4): 659-676.
[22] 张羽,卞晓莉,刘红勇. 个体死亡对施工安全事故学习的影响路径分析 [J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018,28(4): 151-156.
ZHANG Yu, BIAN Xiaoli, LIU Hongyong. Path analysis of impact of individual death on construction safety accident learning [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018,28(4): 151-156.
[23] 克里斯蒂安·FG·申德拉[德]. SPSS回归分析[M].宋武,译.北京:电子工业出版社,2015: 37-42.
SCHENDE FG C. Regressionsanalyse mit SPSS[M].SONG Wu, Translated.Beijing: Publishing House of Electronics Industry, 2015: 37-42.