Mortality, self-interest, and fairness: The differential impact of death-related news on advantageous inequity aversion

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-12 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113039
Wen Li , Yuwen Zhao , Shuaijie Lan, Lili Guan
{"title":"Mortality, self-interest, and fairness: The differential impact of death-related news on advantageous inequity aversion","authors":"Wen Li ,&nbsp;Yuwen Zhao ,&nbsp;Shuaijie Lan,&nbsp;Lili Guan","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Within the framework of Terror Management Theory (TMT), both the pursuit of monetary gain and engagement in prosocial behaviors can buffer against death anxiety. However, these buffers are in conflict in the context of fairness decision-making. Integrating TMT and Life History Theory, we investigated whether different death-related news articles lead individuals to adopt different anxiety-buffering strategies, resulting in varying levels of advantageous inequity aversion (IA). The participants were asked to read one of four news types (accidental death, illness-related death, natural death, or negative affect) and subsequently allocate money between themselves and their co-player. Both Study 1 and 2 demonstrated that participants in the accidental death news condition prioritized acquiring money to buffer against death anxiety, exhibiting lower advantageous IA. In contrast, participants in the illness-related death news condition prioritized engaging in prosocial behavior, exhibiting higher advantageous IA. Study 2 further revealed that accidental (vs. illness-related) death news priming decreased advantageous IA by increasing self-interest concern. Additionally, social distance moderated these effects, with both conditions leading to similarly high advantageous IA when allocating money to friends. These results extend the TMT by showing that the “priority” of different buffers (money, prosocial behavior) varies with mortality threats and social distance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"237 ","pages":"Article 113039"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925000017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Within the framework of Terror Management Theory (TMT), both the pursuit of monetary gain and engagement in prosocial behaviors can buffer against death anxiety. However, these buffers are in conflict in the context of fairness decision-making. Integrating TMT and Life History Theory, we investigated whether different death-related news articles lead individuals to adopt different anxiety-buffering strategies, resulting in varying levels of advantageous inequity aversion (IA). The participants were asked to read one of four news types (accidental death, illness-related death, natural death, or negative affect) and subsequently allocate money between themselves and their co-player. Both Study 1 and 2 demonstrated that participants in the accidental death news condition prioritized acquiring money to buffer against death anxiety, exhibiting lower advantageous IA. In contrast, participants in the illness-related death news condition prioritized engaging in prosocial behavior, exhibiting higher advantageous IA. Study 2 further revealed that accidental (vs. illness-related) death news priming decreased advantageous IA by increasing self-interest concern. Additionally, social distance moderated these effects, with both conditions leading to similarly high advantageous IA when allocating money to friends. These results extend the TMT by showing that the “priority” of different buffers (money, prosocial behavior) varies with mortality threats and social distance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
死亡率、自身利益和公平:死亡相关新闻对有利的不平等厌恶的差异影响
在恐惧管理理论(TMT)的框架下,对金钱利益的追求和亲社会行为的参与都可以缓冲死亡焦虑。然而,这些缓冲在公平决策的背景下是冲突的。结合TMT和生活史理论,我们研究了不同的死亡相关新闻是否会导致个体采取不同的焦虑缓冲策略,从而导致不同程度的优势不公平厌恶(IA)。参与者被要求阅读四种新闻类型中的一种(意外死亡、疾病相关死亡、自然死亡或负面影响),然后在自己和同伴之间分配金钱。研究1和研究2都表明,意外死亡新闻条件下,被试优先考虑获得金钱来缓冲死亡焦虑,表现出较低的优势IA。相比之下,疾病相关死亡新闻条件下的参与者优先参与亲社会行为,表现出更高的有利IA。研究2进一步揭示,意外死亡(与疾病相关)新闻启动通过增加对自身利益的关注而降低有利的IA。此外,社交距离缓和了这些影响,在向朋友分配金钱时,这两种情况都会导致同样高的有利IA。这些结果通过显示不同缓冲(金钱、亲社会行为)的“优先级”随死亡威胁和社会距离而变化来扩展TMT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
期刊最新文献
Charisma is not just for the bold: Connecting tripartite narcissism and self-reports of charisma aspects Social support and prosocial decisions in times of distress: Helping a single recipient versus multiple recipients Development and validation of the individual and social music listening scale (ISMUS-LI) Proportionality as a predictor of utilitarian sacrifices: Evidence from the Polish MFQ-2 Sensing a rift in reality: Validation of the self-world existential isolation scale
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1