其实我们习惯性的是在考试前夕看GMAT机经，但是在平时的复习的时候，小编推荐利用往年的真题来进行练习，这样可以帮助我们更好的来完成GMAT考试的备考。所以小编整理了最新的考试真题，供大家参考。
[V1]
说一个人，为了证明一种叫...invest bias(好像是啊)的理论，设计了一种实验。把投资人分为两组，分别投资到两个项目中去。然后告诉一组人，他们的投资的其中一个项目回报率很低，结果很多人把更多的钱投入到这个项目中去。告诉另外一组人， 他们的他一个项目投资回报率很高，结果他们不愿意花更多的钱投入原来的项目了。
第二段讲，另外一个人不同意他的结果，认为这种结果不是general的情况，而且他的实验设计本身存在问题。所以又设计了另外一种实验，也是两组人两种投资，但是投资的项目不同了，好像不只两种，得出的结论就不一样了。
关键词：performance poor bias genral investor
考古已确认
有关投资倾向的实验比较 【背景知识】
V1(720)
P1关于Staw 这个人的一个实验是“什么 bias”的基础，这个实验大致是证明投资者倾向于更多的投资给programs they did not do well previously。实验是要一组人选择两种投资中的一种，一半的人被告知投资do well,另一半的人被告知投资did not do well。然后让这些人再投资，而这次告诉他们可以将投资split投资于两个项目，结果是之前被告知投资did not do well的人比被告知投资do well的人more intend to invest into the previous program(有考题，注意逻辑关系. (这段一句都没有漏掉哦，厉害吧)
P2另一个人Armstrong又做了实验，其他都和STAW的一样，只是选择多了点儿(貌似那个意思)，多了advertise 和 (同学打个电话来一下又忘了，我错了。。。)，结论不记得了。Armstrong 的实验貌似define的limitations of the ……can generalize,而staw 的不能generalize.还指出了staw的实验的不足，即没有告知实验者相关投资回报 的信息。
其他题 main idea
Armstrong实验的特性
【背景知识】
Escalation Bias: Does ItExtend to Marketing?
JEscalation bias implies that managers favor reinvestments in projects that are doing poorly over those doing well. We tested this implication in a marketing context by conducting experiments on advertising and product-design decisions. Each situation was varied to reflect either a long-term or a short-term decision. Besides these four conditions, we conducted three replications. We found little evidence of escalationbias by 365 subjects in the seven experimental comparisons. Research on sunk costs shows that decision makers oftencontinue to invest unwisely because of commitments to priorinvestments (e.g., Arkes and Blumer 1985). Escalationresearch, starting withStaw (1976), yields evidence consistentwith research on the sunk-cost fallacy. In addition, escalation research has concluded that committed managersare likely to reinvest more inaproject when they receiveinformation that the project is doing poorly than if told it isdoing well. This has been called "escalation bias." This biasof "throwing good money after bad" has intuitive appeal.Should marketing managers be concerned about escalationbias? Common sense would say "yes." We examinedwhether escalation bias is likely to lead to poor marketingJournal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceVolume 21, Number 3, pages 247-253.Copyright 9 1993 by Academy of Marketing Science.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.ISSN 0092-0703.
decisions. We first provide a brief review of the literature.This is followed by a series ofexperiments to test whetherescalation bias occurs in marketing decision making. Ourhypothesis was that escalation bias would occur for marketingdecisions.
BRIEF EVALUATION OF PRIOR RESEARCH
When people make a decision, they often develop a commitmentto it. This seems especially likely for people inorganizations. For example, Fox and Staw (1979) showedthat "trapped administrators" showed a higher level of commitmentto a previous course of action than "nontrappedadministrators." If decisions turn out poorly, the "escalationof commitment" hypothesis suggests that they may invest further so as to make the decision turn out well. Conlon and Parks (1987) called this retrospective rationality. In simple terms, decision makers are often unwilling to take a loss. Staw (1981, p. 577) commented that: Because it is often possible for persons who have suffered a setback to recoup their losses through an even greater commitment of resources to this same course of action, a cycle of escalating commitment can be produced. Staw and Ross (1987a) and Garland (1990) summarized a variety of reasons for the existence of escalation bias. For example, managers may be affected by partial reinforcement and have difficulty accepting information that rewards have disappeared. They might also distort negative information through perceptual defense mechanisms. Organization-JAMS 247 SUMMER, 1993
相关推荐:
