劉增強(qiáng)，郭宗君，魏 巍，徐圣芬，陳 娟，赤海嬌，劉世恩

個體行為抑制-激活對其風(fēng)險決策加工策略的影響研究

劉增強(qiáng)，郭宗君，魏 巍，徐圣芬，陳 娟，赤海嬌，劉世恩

【摘要】目的探討個體行為抑制-激活(BIS/BAS)對其風(fēng)險決策加工策略的影響。方法選取2013年1月—2014年10月在青島大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院進(jìn)行健康體檢的人員347例，根據(jù)BIS/BAS量表測評，選取BIS和BAS得分同高、同低各15%的受試者，分別作為BIS/BAS高分組(n=27)和低分組(n=25)。兩組均進(jìn)行高、低風(fēng)險決策實(shí)驗(yàn)，同時記錄決策損益、選擇偏好和策略模式。結(jié)果兩組低風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分間差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分間差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分與低風(fēng)險決策條件下比較，差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。兩組低風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分間差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分間差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分與低風(fēng)險決策條件下比較，差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。在低風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與選擇偏好、保持策略得分均呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)。在高風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)。結(jié)論風(fēng)險規(guī)避和獲得收益是個體決策的重要機(jī)制，隨著風(fēng)險的增加，決策傾向于更加保守和不確定。低風(fēng)險情況下BIS對個體決策具有更加明顯的調(diào)控作用，策略穩(wěn)定性較高；高風(fēng)險情況下BAS對個體決策具有更加明顯的調(diào)控作用，表現(xiàn)為更高的策略不穩(wěn)定性。

【關(guān)鍵詞】行為抑制/激活系統(tǒng)；決策；風(fēng)險；偏好；策略

劉增強(qiáng)，郭宗君，魏巍，等.個體行為抑制-激活對其風(fēng)險決策加工策略的影響研究[J].中國全科醫(yī)學(xué)，2016，19(4)：458-461.[www.chinagp.net]

Liu ZQ,Guo ZJ,Wei W,et al.Behavioral inhibition and activation effect on the risk decision-making process strategy[J].Chinese General Practice，2016，19(4)：458-461.

Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Effect on the Risk Decision-making Process StrategyLIUZeng-qiang,GUOZong-jun,WEIWei,etal.DepartmentofGerontology,theAffiliatedHospitalofQingdaoUniversity,Qingdao266003,China

【Abstract】ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of behavioral inhibition/activation system(BIS/BAS) and risk decision-making process strategy.MethodsWe enrolled 347 healthy people who received physical examination in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2013 to October 2014.According to the evaluation by BIS/BAS scale,we selected the subjects that were among both 15% highest BIS scorers and 15% highest BAS scorers and assigned them into high score group (n=27);we selected subjects that were among both 15% lowest BIS scorers and 15% lowest BAS scorers and assigned them into low score group (n=25).High-risk decision test and low-risk decision test were conducted on both groups,and gain-loss of decision making,choice preference and strategy pattern were also recorded.ResultsThe two groups were not significantly different in the scores of keeping strategy,abandoning strategy and changing strategy under low-risk decision-making condition(P>0.05);the two groups were significantly different in the scores of keeping strategy,abandoning strategy and changing strategy (P<0.05) under high-risk decision-making condition;the scores of keeping strategy,abandoning strategy and changing strategy of the two groups under high-risk decision-making condition were significantly different from those under low-risk decision-making condition (P<0.05).The two groups were not significantly different in the scores of gain-loss and choice preference under low-risk decision-making condition (P>0.05);the two groups were significantly different in the scores of gain-loss and choice preference under high-risk decision-making condition (P<0.05);the scores of gain-loss and choice preference of the two groups under high-risk decision-making condition were significantly different from those under low-risk decision-making condition (P<0.05).Under low-risk decision-making condition,BIS score was positively correlated with the scores of choice preference and keeping strategy (P<0.05),and was negatively correlative with the score of changing strategy(P<0.05);BAS score was negatively correlated with keeping strategy(P<0.05),but was negatively correlated with the score of changing strategy.Under high-risk decision-making condition,BIS score was positively correlated with the score of abandoning strategy(P<0.05),but was negatively correlated with the score of changing strategy (P<0.05);BAS score was negatively correlated with the score of abandoning strategy(P<0.05),but was positively correlated with the score of changing strategy (P<0.05).ConclusionRisk aversion and getting gains are important mechanisms of individual decision,and with the increase of risk,decision-making tends to be more conservative and uncertain.Under low-risk condition,BIS has more significant control effect on individual decision making,with higher strategy stability;under high-risk decision,BAS has more significant control effect on individual decision making,showing higher strategy instability.

【Key words】Behavioral inhibition/activation system;Decision making;Risk;Preference;Strategy

行為抑制(BIS)是對懲罰性刺激、非獎賞刺激敏感。當(dāng)BIS被激活時，個體常減慢或停止行為[1]。行為激活(BAS)是對獎賞、非懲罰性刺激敏感。當(dāng)BAS被激活時，常促進(jìn)個體行為[2]。Suhr等[3]發(fā)現(xiàn)BIS得分高且BAS得分低的個體較BIS得分低且BAS得分高的個體在愛荷華賭博任務(wù)(IGT)中得分更高。由此可見，由于BIS/BAS的不同，其決策績效存在差異，推測其決策加工的策略模式亦應(yīng)存在差異，從而導(dǎo)致行為績效的差異。因此，探討不同BIS/BAS類型個體在不同風(fēng)險決策過程中的策略模式和特點(diǎn)具有重要的意義。本研究旨在探討B(tài)IS與BAS得分同時高、低分組在不同風(fēng)險決策過程的策略模式。

1對象與方法

1.1研究對象選取2013年1月—2014年10月在青島大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院進(jìn)行健康體檢的人員347例，其中男180例，女167例。納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：(1)認(rèn)知功能正常，簡易智能狀態(tài)檢查(MMSE)評分均為30分[4]；(2)情緒穩(wěn)定，漢密爾頓焦慮量表(HAMA)分值<7分和漢密爾頓抑郁量表(HRSD)分值<8分[4]；(3)漢族；(4)年齡20～55歲；(5)知情同意且能夠配合檢查。排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：(1)既往有心、腦、肝、腎等疾病病史，精神疾病史及精神疾病用藥史、家族史；(2)有重大軀體疾??；(3)色盲。

1.2方法

1.2.1BIS/BAS量表測評[5]受試者均進(jìn)行BIS/BAS量表測評，按BIS、BAS量表得分由高到低排序，選取BIS和BAS得分同高、同低各15%的受試者，分別作為BIS/BAS高分組(n=27)和低分組(n=25)。

1.2.2決策實(shí)驗(yàn)決策任務(wù)參照Ellsberg[6]和陳娟等[7]的方法并略做修改，采用E-prime編程完成。具體為：電腦屏幕上呈現(xiàn)一個盒子，其內(nèi)有10張撲克牌，分別由方塊和梅花兩種花色組成，方塊、梅花在盒子內(nèi)左右隨機(jī)呈現(xiàn)，并標(biāo)明各自在盒子內(nèi)的數(shù)量。要求受試者每次是否從盒子中抽方塊？抽牌按1鍵；放棄按4鍵。抽到方塊則得分獎勵，沒有抽到則扣分。先進(jìn)行預(yù)實(shí)驗(yàn)，告知受試者任務(wù)要求和得分及獎懲情況，待充分熟悉實(shí)驗(yàn)過程后進(jìn)行正式實(shí)驗(yàn)。實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)束后將得分合計(jì)折算成人民幣付給受試者。其中有2種決策情景：(1)低風(fēng)險決策：盒子內(nèi)有6張方塊、4張梅花牌，抽中+18分，抽不中-18分，放棄0分；(2)高風(fēng)險決策：盒子內(nèi)有2張方塊、8張梅花牌，抽中+50分，抽不中-50分，放棄0分。每種決策情景重復(fù)10次，電腦自動記錄受試者的損益得分、選擇模式等。參照文獻(xiàn)[4]方法計(jì)算選擇偏好、策略模式得分等。

2結(jié)果

2.1兩組一般情況比較兩組受試者的MMSE得分均為30分。兩組性別、年齡、受教育年限及HAMA、HRSD得分間差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05，見表1)，具有可比性。

表1　兩組一般情況比較

注：HAMA=漢密爾頓焦慮量表，HRSD=漢密爾頓抑郁量表；a為χ2值

2.2兩組不同風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分比較兩組低風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分間差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分間差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分與低風(fēng)險決策條件下比較，差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05，見表2)。

2.3兩組不同風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分比較兩組低風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分間差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分間差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風(fēng)險決策條件下?lián)p益、選擇偏好得分與低風(fēng)險決策條件下比較，差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05，見表3)。

Table 2Comparison of the scores of keeping strategy,abandoning strategy and changing strategy under different risk decision-making conditions between the two groups

組別例數(shù)保持策略低風(fēng)險 高風(fēng)險放棄策略低風(fēng)險 高風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)換策略低風(fēng)險 高風(fēng)險低分組257.0±2.21.1±0.3a0.8±0.13.9±0.5a1.9±0.44.0±0.4a高分組277.5±1.82.7±0.5a0.2±0.12.3±0.6a1.3±0.32.9±0.3at值0.6844.3131.0522.0121.1122.150P值>0.05<0.01>0.05<0.05>0.05<0.01

注：與低風(fēng)險比較，aP<0.01

Table 3Comparison of the scores of gain-loss and choice preference under different risk decision-making conditions between the two groups

組別例數(shù)損益低風(fēng)險 高風(fēng)險選擇偏好低風(fēng)險 高風(fēng)險低分組2544.6±10.6-100.0±18.7a88.8±2.432.8±4.1a高分組2734.7±10.0-168.5±25.1a91.9±1.958.2±6.2at值0.6842.1641.0153.416P值>0.05<0.01>0.05<0.05

注：與低風(fēng)險比較，aP<0.01

2.4不同風(fēng)險決策條件下BIS、BAS得分與損益、選擇偏好及各策略模式得分的相關(guān)分析低分組BIS、BAS得分分別為(6.1±1.1)、(16.0±5.0)分；高分組BIS、BAS得分分別為(15.3±3.0)、(28.1±8.0)分。在低風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與選擇偏好、保持策略得分均呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)。在高風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)(P<0.05)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)(P<0.05，見表4)。

3討論

強(qiáng)化敏感理論認(rèn)為主要有兩大機(jī)制導(dǎo)致了人格、情緒及行為的個體差異。一是BIS，一是BAS[8]。BIS對懲罰或威脅性刺激敏感，產(chǎn)生回避或退縮行為。BAS系統(tǒng)對獎賞等刺激敏感，產(chǎn)生趨近行為。大量研究顯示，BIS/BAS敏感性改變與心理和行為問題有關(guān)，如焦慮、抑郁、物質(zhì)濫用、飲食障礙和人格障礙等[9-11]。有研究發(fā)現(xiàn)BAS和BIS都能各自驅(qū)動趨近和回避行為，也就是說各自具有產(chǎn)生消極情緒和積極情緒的部分潛能[12]。

表4不同風(fēng)險決策條件下BIS、BAS得分與損益、選擇偏好及各策略模式得分的相關(guān)分析(r值)

Table 4Correlation between BIS /BAS scores and gain-loss,choice preference and each strategy mode under different risk decision-making conditions

變量損益選擇偏好保持策略放棄策略轉(zhuǎn)換策略低風(fēng)險 BIS0.0100.299a0.314a-0.074-0.316a BAS-0.085-0.235-0.277a0.1620.255a高風(fēng)險 BIS-0.005-0.0240.1770.269a-0.628a BAS-0.1040.2020.046-0.361a0.539a

注：BIS=行為抑制，BAS=行為激活

本研究結(jié)果顯示，兩組在低風(fēng)險決策條件下未發(fā)現(xiàn)損益、選擇偏好、策略運(yùn)用方面的差異，但在高風(fēng)險決策條件損益、選擇偏好、策略模式方面均存在差異。在高風(fēng)險決策(高即時收益、高即時損失)條件下BIS/BAS高分組較低分組具有更高的選擇偏好、保持策略，但損益、放棄、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分均低于低分組。本研究還顯示，低風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與選擇偏好、保持策略得分均呈正相關(guān)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)。在高風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關(guān)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負(fù)相關(guān)，而與轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分呈正相關(guān)。這些結(jié)果表明，BIS和BAS均參與了決策加工判斷過程，且具有相互制約和相互影響的作用[13]。但在低風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS占有更大的主導(dǎo)作用，個體更多地考慮穩(wěn)妥和控制損失等因素，采取慎重和穩(wěn)步的策略模式，保障更多的經(jīng)濟(jì)獲益。而在高風(fēng)險決策條件下，BIS和BAS得分同高個體，具有較高的選擇偏好和風(fēng)險傾向，但決策得分并不高，說明高風(fēng)險條件下BAS占主導(dǎo)的可能性更大，BIS和BAS得分同高個體更多地被風(fēng)險獎賞性的投機(jī)機(jī)會因素與即時的高收益因素所吸引，表現(xiàn)為更高的選擇偏好和策略保持傾向，較少的放棄和轉(zhuǎn)換策略傾向。Balconi等[14]、Seifert等[15]研究發(fā)現(xiàn)BAS高分個體在高即時收益、高即時損失同時并存的情況下更關(guān)注高即時收益；Brunborg等[16]研究結(jié)果顯示BIS高分個體在IGT中具有躲避高風(fēng)險傾向，在高風(fēng)險條件下得分更高；van等[17]研究結(jié)果顯示，與高BAS得分并低BIS得分被試比較，低BAS得分并高BIS得分的被試在IGT中總得分更高，表明在高低風(fēng)險損益并存的條件下，行為決策同時受到BIS、BAS的影響，且BIS在低風(fēng)險收益得分方面具有重要作用，而BAS在追求高風(fēng)險收益方面具有重要作用。本研究結(jié)果與之基本一致。

本研究結(jié)果還提示同組內(nèi)低風(fēng)險比高風(fēng)險損益、選擇偏好得分明顯增高，而放棄策略、轉(zhuǎn)換策略得分明顯降低，這表明風(fēng)險規(guī)避和獲得收益是個體決策加工過程中的重要機(jī)制，隨著風(fēng)險的增加，決策傾向于更加保守和不確定。

作者貢獻(xiàn)：劉增強(qiáng)、郭宗君進(jìn)行研究設(shè)計(jì)與實(shí)施、撰寫論文、成文并對文章負(fù)責(zé)；劉增強(qiáng)、魏巍、徐圣芬、陳娟、赤海嬌、劉世恩進(jìn)行研究實(shí)施、評估、資料收集；郭宗君進(jìn)行質(zhì)量控制與審校。

本文無利益沖突。

參考文獻(xiàn)

[1]Gray JA.Brain system that mediate both emotion and cognition[J].Cognition & Emotion,1990,4(3):269-288.

[2]Li YZ,Xu L,Kuang Y,et al.Relationship between cognitive emotion regulation and behavioral inhibition/activation system of adolescents[J].Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science,2013,22(1):53-55.(in Chinese)

李彥章,徐立,匡婭,等.青少年認(rèn)知情緒調(diào)節(jié)與行為抑制行為激活系統(tǒng)的關(guān)系[J].中華行為醫(yī)學(xué)與腦科學(xué)雜志,2013,22(1):53-55.

[3]Suhr JA,Tsanadis J.Affect and personality correlates of the Iowa Gambling Task[J].Personality & Individual Differences,2007,43(1):27-36.

[4]徐圣芬,郭宗君,李玉煥,等.抑郁焦慮共病及抑郁癥病人決策加工策略研究[J].青島大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報,2014,50(6):481-483.

[5]Alloy LB.High behavioral approach system (BAS) sensitivity,reward responsiveness,and goal-striving predict first onset of bipolar spectrum disorders: a prospective behavioral high risk design[J].Journal of Abnormal Psychology,2012,121(2):339-351.

[6]Ellsberg DR.Ambiguity,and the savage axioms[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1961,75(4):643-669.

[7]Chen J,Guo ZJ,Liu SE,et al.Analysis of activated brain areas in uncertain rewarding processing of decision making on healthy volunteers[J].Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science,2013,22(3):240-242.(in Chinese)

陳娟,郭宗君,劉世恩,等.正常健康者不確定獎賞決策加工過程激活腦區(qū)分析[J].中華行為醫(yī)學(xué)與腦科學(xué)雜志,2013,22(3):240-242.

[8]Smillie LD，Pickering AD,Jackson CJ.The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: implications for personality measurement[J].Pers Soc Psychol Rev,2006,10(4):320-335.

[9]Balconi M,Falbo L,Conte VA.BIS and BAS correlates with psychophysiological and cortical response systems during aversive and appetitive emotional stimuli processing[J].Motivation & Emotion,2012,36(2):218-231.

[10]Hundt NE，Kimbrel NA，Mitchell JT,et al.High BAS but not low BIS，predicts externalizing symptoms in adults[J].Pets lndivid Differ,2008,44(3):565-575.

[11]Perry JL,Joseph JE,Jiang Y,et al.Prefrontal cortex and drug abuse vulnerability: translation to prevention and treatment interventions[J].Brain Res Rev，2011，65(2):124-149.

[12]Carver CS.Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: placing positive feelings within a general model of affect[J].Cognition & Emotion,2003,17(2):241-261

[13]Wardell JD,Read JP,Colder CR.The role of behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach systems in the associations between mood and alcohol consequences in college: a longitudinal multilevel analysis[J].Addict Behav,2013,38(11):2772-2781.

[14]Balconi M,Finocchiaro R,Canavesio Y,et al.Reward bias and lateralization in gambling behavior: behavioral activation system and alpha band analysis[J].Psychiatry Res,2014,219(3):570-576.

[15]Seifert CA,Wulfert E.The effects of realistic reward and risk on simulated gambling behavior[J].Am J Addict,2011,20(2):120-126.

[16]Brunborg GS,Johnsen BH,Pallesen S,et al.The relationship between aversive conditioning and risk-avoidance in gambling[J].J Gambl Stud,2010,26(4):545-559.

[17]van Honk J,Hermans EJ,Putman P,et al.Defective somatic markers in sub-clinical psychopathy[J].Neuroreport,2002,13(8):1025-1027.

(本文編輯：崔沙沙)

(收稿日期：2015-10-02；修回日期：2015-12-26)

【中圖分類號】R-055

【文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼】A

doi：10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2016.04.021

通信作者：郭宗君，266003山東省青島市，青島大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院保健科；E-mail：guozjj@163.com

基金項(xiàng)目：山東省科技發(fā)展計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目(2011YD18045)；山東省自然科學(xué)基金資助項(xiàng)目(ZR2012HM049)；山東省保健基金資助項(xiàng)目(2007BZ19)；青島市科技局基金資助項(xiàng)目(Kzd-03、09-1-1-33-nsh、KZJ-28)
作者單位：266003山東省青島市，青島大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院保健科(劉增強(qiáng)，郭宗君，魏巍，赤海嬌)；臨沂市平邑縣人民醫(yī)院(徐圣芬)；陜西省西安兵器工業(yè)五二一醫(yī)院(陳娟)；青島大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院醫(yī)學(xué)影像科(劉世恩)

·社會·行為·心理 ·