Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500008378
Arvid Erlandsson
{"title":"Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice","authors":"Arvid Erlandsson","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In ten studies (N = 9187), I systematically investigated the direction and size of seven helping effects (the identifiable-victim effect, proportion dominance effect, ingroup effect, existence effect, innocence effect, age effect and gender effect). All effects were tested in three decision modes (separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice), and in their weak form (equal efficiency), or strong form (unequal efficiency). Participants read about one, or two, medical help projects and rated the attractiveness of and allocated resources to the project/projects, or choose which project to implement. The results show that the included help-situation attributes vary in their: (1) Evaluability – e.g., rescue proportion is the easiest to evaluate in separate evaluation. (2) Justifiability – e.g., people prefer to save fewer lives now rather than more lives in the future, but not fewer identified lives rather than more statistical lives. (3) Prominence – e.g., people express a preference to help females, but only when forced to choose.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

In ten studies (N = 9187), I systematically investigated the direction and size of seven helping effects (the identifiable-victim effect, proportion dominance effect, ingroup effect, existence effect, innocence effect, age effect and gender effect). All effects were tested in three decision modes (separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice), and in their weak form (equal efficiency), or strong form (unequal efficiency). Participants read about one, or two, medical help projects and rated the attractiveness of and allocated resources to the project/projects, or choose which project to implement. The results show that the included help-situation attributes vary in their: (1) Evaluability – e.g., rescue proportion is the easiest to evaluate in separate evaluation. (2) Justifiability – e.g., people prefer to save fewer lives now rather than more lives in the future, but not fewer identified lives rather than more statistical lives. (3) Prominence – e.g., people express a preference to help females, but only when forced to choose.
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
在单独评价、联合评价和强制选择中系统测试了七种(弱和强)帮助效果
在10项研究(N = 9187)中,我系统地考察了七种帮助效应(可识别受害者效应、比例优势效应、群体内效应、存在效应、清白效应、年龄效应和性别效应)的方向和大小。在三种决策模式(单独评价、联合评价和强制选择)下,分别以弱形式(等效率)和强形式(等效率)对所有效应进行检验。参与者阅读一个或两个医疗帮助项目,并对项目的吸引力进行评级,并为项目分配资源,或者选择实施哪个项目。结果表明,所包含的救助属性在以下方面存在差异:(1)可评价性,如单独评价中救援比例最容易评价;(2)合理性——例如,人们宁愿现在拯救更少的生命,而不是将来拯救更多的生命,但不是更少的确定生命,而不是更多的统计生命。(3)突出性——例如,人们表现出帮助女性的偏好,但只有在被迫选择的情况下。
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
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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:481959085
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