個體行為抑制-激活對其風險決策加工策略的影響研究

劉增強，郭宗君，魏 巍，徐圣芬，陳 娟，赤海嬌，劉世恩

個體行為抑制-激活對其風險決策加工策略的影響研究

劉增強，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月在青島大學附屬醫院進行健康體檢的人員347例，根據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)。兩組均進行高、低風險決策實驗，同時記錄決策損益、選擇偏好和策略模式。結果兩組低風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分間差異均無統計學意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分間差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分與低風險決策條件下比較，差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)。兩組低風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分間差異均無統計學意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分間差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分與低風險決策條件下比較，差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)。在低風險決策條件下，BIS得分與選擇偏好、保持策略得分均呈正相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05)。在高風險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05)。結論風險規避和獲得收益是個體決策的重要機制，隨著風險的增加，決策傾向于更加保守和不確定。低風險情況下BIS對個體決策具有更加明顯的調控作用，策略穩定性較高；高風險情況下BAS對個體決策具有更加明顯的調控作用，表現為更高的策略不穩定性。

【關鍵詞】行為抑制/激活系統；決策；風險；偏好；策略

劉增強，郭宗君，魏巍，等.個體行為抑制-激活對其風險決策加工策略的影響研究[J].中國全科醫學，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BAS被激活時，常促進個體行為[2]。Suhr等[3]發現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(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存在差異，從而導致行為績效的差異。因此，探討不同BIS/BAS類型個體在不同風險決策過程中的策略模式和特點具有重要的意義。本研究旨在探討BIS與BAS得分同時高、低分組在不同風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月在青島大學附屬醫院進行健康體檢的人員347例，其中男180例，女167例。納入標準：(1)認知功能正常，簡易智能狀態檢查(MMSE)評分均為30分[4]；(2)情緒穩定，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。排除標準：(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)有重大軀體疾病；(3)色盲。

1.2方法

1.2.1BIS/BAS量表測評[5]受試者均進行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決策實驗決策任務參照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：電腦屏幕上呈現一個盒子，其內有10張撲克牌，分別由方塊和梅花兩種花色組成，方塊、梅花在盒子內左右隨機呈現，并標明各自在盒子內的數量。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。先進行預實驗，告知受試者任務要求和得分及獎懲情況，待充分熟悉實驗過程后進行正式實驗。實驗結束后將得分合計折算成人民幣付給受試者。其中有2種決策情景：(1)低風險決策：盒子內有6張方塊、4張梅花牌，抽中+18分，抽不中-18分，放棄0分；(2)高風險決策：盒子內有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[4]方法計算選擇偏好、策略模式得分等。

2結果

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得分間差異均無統計學意義(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

2.2兩組不同風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分比較兩組低風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分間差異均無統計學意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分間差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下保持策略、放棄策略、轉換策略得分與低風險決策條件下比較，差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05，見表2)。

2.3兩組不同風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分比較兩組低風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分間差異均無統計學意義(P>0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分間差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)；兩組高風險決策條件下損益、選擇偏好得分與低風險決策條件下比較，差異均有統計學意義(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

組別例數保持策略低風險 高風險放棄策略低風險 高風險轉換策略低風險 高風險低分組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

組別例數損益低風險 高風險選擇偏好低風險 高風險低分組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：與低風險比較，aP<0.01

2.4不同風險決策條件下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(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05)。在高風險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負相關(P<0.05)，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關(P<0.05，見表4)。

3討論

強化敏感理論認為主要有兩大機制導致了人格、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，產生回避或退縮行為。BAS系統對獎賞等刺激敏感，產生趨近行為。大量研究顯示，BIS/BAS敏感性改變與心理和行為問題有關，如焦慮、抑郁、物質濫用、飲食障礙和人格障礙等[9-11]。有研究發現BAS和BIS都能各自驅動趨近和回避行為，也就是說各自具有產生消極情緒和積極情緒的部分潛能[12]。

表4不同風險決策條件下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換策略低風險 BIS0.0100.299a0.314a-0.074-0.316a BAS-0.085-0.235-0.277a0.1620.255a高風險 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

本研究結果顯示，兩組在低風險決策條件下未發現損益、選擇偏好、策略運用方面的差異，但在高風險決策條件損益、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、轉換策略得分均低于低分組。本研究還顯示，低風險決策條件下，BIS得分與選擇偏好、保持策略得分均呈正相關，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關；BAS得分與保持策略得分呈負相關，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關。在高風險決策條件下，BIS得分與放棄策略得分呈正相關，而與轉換策略得分呈負相關；BAS得分與放棄策略得分呈負相關，而與轉換策略得分呈正相關。這些結果表明，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]。但在低風險決策條件下，BIS占有更大的主導作用，個體更多地考慮穩妥和控制損失等因素，采取慎重和穩步的策略模式，保障更多的經濟獲益。而在高風險決策條件下，BIS和BAS得分同高個體，具有較高的選擇偏好和風險傾向，但決策得分并不高，說明高風險條件下BAS占主導的可能性更大，BIS和BAS得分同高個體更多地被風險獎賞性的投機機會因素與即時的高收益因素所吸引，表現為更高的選擇偏好和策略保持傾向，較少的放棄和轉換策略傾向。Balconi等[14]、Seifert等[15]研究發現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注高即時收益；Brunborg等[16]研究結果顯示BIS高分個體在IGT中具有躲避高風險傾向，在高風險條件下得分更高；van等[17]研究結果顯示，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在低風險收益得分方面具有重要作用，而BAS在追求高風險收益方面具有重要作用。本研究結果與之基本一致。

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

作者貢獻：劉增強、郭宗君進行研究設計與實施、撰寫論文、成文并對文章負責；劉增強、魏巍、徐圣芬、陳娟、赤海嬌、劉世恩進行研究實施、評估、資料收集；郭宗君進行質量控制與審校。

本文無利益沖突。

參考文獻

[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.青少年認知情緒調節與行為抑制行為激活系統的關系[J].中華行為醫學與腦科學雜志,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].青島大學醫學院學報,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分析[J].中華行為醫學與腦科學雜志,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

【文獻標識碼】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，青島大學附屬醫院保健科；E-mail：guozjj@163.com

基金項目：山東省科技發展計劃項目(2011YD18045)；山東省自然科學基金資助項目(ZR2012HM049)；山東省保健基金資助項目(2007BZ19)；青島市科技局基金資助項目(Kzd-03、09-1-1-33-nsh、KZJ-28)
作者單位：266003山東省青島市，青島大學附屬醫院保健科(劉增強，郭宗君，魏巍，赤海嬌)；臨沂市平邑縣人民醫院(徐圣芬)；陜西省西安兵器工業五二一醫院(陳娟)；青島大學附屬醫院醫學影像科(劉世恩)

·社會·行為·心理 ·