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.
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.