The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts

IF 3.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Australian Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-15 DOI:10.1080/00049530.2023.2220414
Lingchao Sun, Yilin Xiao, Wenxu Mao, Bohan Cao, H. Mao, Dawei Wang, Yixin Hu
{"title":"The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts","authors":"Lingchao Sun, Yilin Xiao, Wenxu Mao, Bohan Cao, H. Mao, Dawei Wang, Yixin Hu","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2023.2220414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective The current study aims to explore the influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and for groups in intergroup contexts. Method Two experiments with the within-subjects design of 2 (social comparison: upward comparison, downward comparison) × 3 (decision-maker role: for “me”, for “us”, for “them”) were conducted in this study. Experiment 1 focused on the ingroup contexts, and experiment 2 focused on the outgroup contexts. Results (1) in outgroup contexts, individuals are more risk-seeking in upward comparison conditions than in downward comparison conditions. However, the difference disappears in ingroup contexts. (2) Making decisions for “them” is riskier than making decisions for “me” and for “us” with no significant differences between the latter two and consistent across intergroup contexts. (3) The difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons is amplified for decisions made for groups. Conclusion The findings may support the selective accessibility model and provide an interpretation with responsibility alleviation for self-group differences in risk decision-making. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: Recent research provides evidence for social loss aversion with individuals taking more risks when making upward comparisons. Previous findings of studies without involving social comparisons on the difference between making risk decisions for oneself and making decisions for others were not consistent. The identity of the comparison target affected an individual’s attention to social comparison. What this topic adds: Making decisions for a group magnified the difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons. The perception of less responsibility for “their” welfare led to the decision makers taking more risks when making decisions for “them”. The difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons appears in outgroup contexts whereas disappears in ingroup contexts for an outgroup context highlights comparative information, while an ingroup context weakens social comparison information.","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2023.2220414","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective The current study aims to explore the influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and for groups in intergroup contexts. Method Two experiments with the within-subjects design of 2 (social comparison: upward comparison, downward comparison) × 3 (decision-maker role: for “me”, for “us”, for “them”) were conducted in this study. Experiment 1 focused on the ingroup contexts, and experiment 2 focused on the outgroup contexts. Results (1) in outgroup contexts, individuals are more risk-seeking in upward comparison conditions than in downward comparison conditions. However, the difference disappears in ingroup contexts. (2) Making decisions for “them” is riskier than making decisions for “me” and for “us” with no significant differences between the latter two and consistent across intergroup contexts. (3) The difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons is amplified for decisions made for groups. Conclusion The findings may support the selective accessibility model and provide an interpretation with responsibility alleviation for self-group differences in risk decision-making. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: Recent research provides evidence for social loss aversion with individuals taking more risks when making upward comparisons. Previous findings of studies without involving social comparisons on the difference between making risk decisions for oneself and making decisions for others were not consistent. The identity of the comparison target affected an individual’s attention to social comparison. What this topic adds: Making decisions for a group magnified the difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons. The perception of less responsibility for “their” welfare led to the decision makers taking more risks when making decisions for “them”. The difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons appears in outgroup contexts whereas disappears in ingroup contexts for an outgroup context highlights comparative information, while an ingroup context weakens social comparison information.
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
群体间社会比较对自我和群体风险决策的影响
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
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy complications and their association with postpartum depression symptoms: a retrospective study Compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures during the onset of the pandemic in Australia: investigating the role of trust in federal and state governments and scientists The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts FoMO, but not self-compassion, moderates the link between social media use and anxiety in adolescence A critical analysis of online social support for young people experiencing chronic pain
×
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