为他人选择就像为自己选择一样?跨越社会距离的概率优先选择分层分析

IF 2.5 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Psychology Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2024.102754
Daniel R. Cavagnaro , Xiaozhi Yang , Michel Regenwetter
{"title":"为他人选择就像为自己选择一样?跨越社会距离的概率优先选择分层分析","authors":"Daniel R. Cavagnaro ,&nbsp;Xiaozhi Yang ,&nbsp;Michel Regenwetter","doi":"10.1016/j.joep.2024.102754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The present study examines the effect of social distance on choice behavior through the lens of a probabilistic modeling framework. In an experiment, participants made incentive-compatible choices between lotteries in three different social distance conditions: self, friend, and stranger. We conduct a layered, within-subjects analysis that considers four properties of preferential choice. These properties vary in their granularity. At the coarsest level, we test whether choices are consistent with transitive underlying preferences. At a finer level of granularity, we evaluate whether each participant is best described as having fixed preferences with random errors or probabilistic preferences with error-free choices. In the latter case, we further distinguish three different bounds on response error rates. At the finest level, we identify the specific transitive preference ranking of the choice options that best describes a person’s choices. At each level of the analysis, we find that the stability between the self and friend conditions exceeds that between the self and stranger conditions. Stability increases with the coarseness of the analysis: Nearly all people are consistent with transitive preferences regardless of the social distance condition, but only for very few do we infer the same preference ranking in every social distance condition. Overall, while it matters whether one makes a choice on behalf of a friend versus for a stranger, the differences are most apparent when analyzing the data at a detailed level of granularity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48318,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Psychology","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102754"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748702400062X/pdfft?md5=706b4a7b4f243a4c13f3494c9c557ee9&pid=1-s2.0-S016748702400062X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choose for others as you would choose for yourself? A layered analysis of probabilistic preferential choice across social distances\",\"authors\":\"Daniel R. Cavagnaro ,&nbsp;Xiaozhi Yang ,&nbsp;Michel Regenwetter\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joep.2024.102754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The present study examines the effect of social distance on choice behavior through the lens of a probabilistic modeling framework. In an experiment, participants made incentive-compatible choices between lotteries in three different social distance conditions: self, friend, and stranger. We conduct a layered, within-subjects analysis that considers four properties of preferential choice. These properties vary in their granularity. At the coarsest level, we test whether choices are consistent with transitive underlying preferences. At a finer level of granularity, we evaluate whether each participant is best described as having fixed preferences with random errors or probabilistic preferences with error-free choices. In the latter case, we further distinguish three different bounds on response error rates. At the finest level, we identify the specific transitive preference ranking of the choice options that best describes a person’s choices. At each level of the analysis, we find that the stability between the self and friend conditions exceeds that between the self and stranger conditions. Stability increases with the coarseness of the analysis: Nearly all people are consistent with transitive preferences regardless of the social distance condition, but only for very few do we infer the same preference ranking in every social distance condition. Overall, while it matters whether one makes a choice on behalf of a friend versus for a stranger, the differences are most apparent when analyzing the data at a detailed level of granularity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Psychology\",\"volume\":\"104 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102754\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748702400062X/pdfft?md5=706b4a7b4f243a4c13f3494c9c557ee9&pid=1-s2.0-S016748702400062X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748702400062X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748702400062X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究通过概率模型框架的视角,探讨了社会距离对选择行为的影响。在一项实验中,受试者在三种不同的社会距离条件下(自己、朋友和陌生人)对彩票做出了激励相容的选择。我们进行了分层的主体内分析,考虑了优先选择的四个属性。这些属性的粒度各不相同。在最粗略的层次上,我们测试选择是否与传递性基本偏好相一致。在更精细的层次上,我们会评估每个参与者是具有随机误差的固定偏好,还是具有无误选择的概率偏好。在后一种情况下,我们进一步区分了三种不同的回答错误率界限。在最精细的层次上,我们确定了最能描述一个人选择的选项的具体反式偏好排序。在每个分析层次上,我们都会发现,自我条件和朋友条件之间的稳定性都超过了自我条件和陌生人条件之间的稳定性。稳定性随着分析的粗略程度而增加:无论社会距离条件如何,几乎所有的人都符合传递性偏好,但只有极少数人在每种社会距离条件下都能推断出相同的偏好排序。总的来说,虽然一个人是代表朋友还是代表陌生人做出选择很重要,但在详细分析数据时,差异是最明显的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Choose for others as you would choose for yourself? A layered analysis of probabilistic preferential choice across social distances

The present study examines the effect of social distance on choice behavior through the lens of a probabilistic modeling framework. In an experiment, participants made incentive-compatible choices between lotteries in three different social distance conditions: self, friend, and stranger. We conduct a layered, within-subjects analysis that considers four properties of preferential choice. These properties vary in their granularity. At the coarsest level, we test whether choices are consistent with transitive underlying preferences. At a finer level of granularity, we evaluate whether each participant is best described as having fixed preferences with random errors or probabilistic preferences with error-free choices. In the latter case, we further distinguish three different bounds on response error rates. At the finest level, we identify the specific transitive preference ranking of the choice options that best describes a person’s choices. At each level of the analysis, we find that the stability between the self and friend conditions exceeds that between the self and stranger conditions. Stability increases with the coarseness of the analysis: Nearly all people are consistent with transitive preferences regardless of the social distance condition, but only for very few do we infer the same preference ranking in every social distance condition. Overall, while it matters whether one makes a choice on behalf of a friend versus for a stranger, the differences are most apparent when analyzing the data at a detailed level of granularity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
31.40%
发文量
69
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with preferences, judgments, choices, economic interaction, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgements and decisions for economic processes and phenomena. This includes the impact of economic institutions upon human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation, from the household and the individual consumer to the macro level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as well as consumer information and economic behavior in the market place are thus among the fields of interest. The journal also encourages submissions dealing with social interaction in economic contexts, like bargaining, negotiation, or group decision-making. The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) novel reports of empirical (including: experimental) research on economic behavior; (b) replications studies; (c) assessments of the state of the art in economic psychology; (d) articles providing a theoretical perspective or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior; (e) articles explaining the implications of theoretical developments for practical applications; (f) book reviews; (g) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.
期刊最新文献
Entrepreneurial worries: Self-employment and potential loss of well-being Empowered or informed? Seeking to mitigate gender differences in first-offer assertiveness through pre-negotiation interventions Cognitive dissonance, political participation, and changes in policy preferences Memory bias beyond ego: Selective recall of positive financial outcomes Moral hypocrisy and the dichotomy of hypothetical versus real choices in prosocial behavior
×
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