Gain-loss domain and social value orientation as determinants of risk allocation decisions

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Ming-Hong Tsai, Verlin B. Hinsz
{"title":"Gain-loss domain and social value orientation as determinants of risk allocation decisions","authors":"Ming-Hong Tsai, Verlin B. Hinsz","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractPeople often make less risky decisions for themselves than others. We examined how people allocated risks (i.e., determining the ratio of uncertain outcomes to certain outcomes) between themselves and others. We also investigated gain (vs. loss) domain and social value orientation as predictors of risk allocations. The results of three experiments demonstrated that participants were more likely to share their risks equally between themselves and others than distribute risk unequally. In the gain (vs. loss) domain, participants allocated fewer risks to themselves and more risks to the other person for unequal risk allocations. Compared to proselfs, prosocials were more likely to allocate risks equally. We also found stronger domain effects on unequal risk allocations for proselfs than for prosocials. Therefore, our findings clarify the effects of risk distribution, domain, and social value orientation on interpersonal allocation decisions and highlight equal risk distribution between oneself and others.Keywords: Allocation decisionrisk distributiongain-loss domainsocial value orientationself-other Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 For the options of risk allocation, a percentage refers to the proportion of an uncertain outcome to a total outcome allocated to oneself or another individual.2 We declare that there is no conflict of interest. We also confirm that the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines specified in the APA Code of Conduct and our national ethics guidelines. Please see the data and analysis codes at https://osf.io/zmwfc/?view_only=95de83989f50460c97477aa6cb5239b0.3 We conducted power analyses to demonstrate that our sample sizes have sufficient power in Experiments 1-3. We also ran additional analyses to demonstrate the even distribution of sample sizes across different conditions before and after filtering the data in Experiments 1 and 2. These are presented in the supplemental materials.4 We followed the incentive instructions to pair participants, calculate each participant’s final points, and awarded the three participants accordingly in each condition with the incentive instructions (in Experiments 1 and 2).5 We also ran additional analyses without the controls for the differences in the items and choices, and the results demonstrated consistent patterns between the results with and without controls, which suggests that the differences in the first-stage allocations did not significantly influence our results. Please see the relevant results in the section titled “Results without Controls for the Allocation Outcomes During the Initial Decisions in Experiments 1 and 2” in the supplemental materials.6 The percentage refers to the average difference of the selection likelihood of a specific risk-distribution option between the gain and loss conditions.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259543","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractPeople often make less risky decisions for themselves than others. We examined how people allocated risks (i.e., determining the ratio of uncertain outcomes to certain outcomes) between themselves and others. We also investigated gain (vs. loss) domain and social value orientation as predictors of risk allocations. The results of three experiments demonstrated that participants were more likely to share their risks equally between themselves and others than distribute risk unequally. In the gain (vs. loss) domain, participants allocated fewer risks to themselves and more risks to the other person for unequal risk allocations. Compared to proselfs, prosocials were more likely to allocate risks equally. We also found stronger domain effects on unequal risk allocations for proselfs than for prosocials. Therefore, our findings clarify the effects of risk distribution, domain, and social value orientation on interpersonal allocation decisions and highlight equal risk distribution between oneself and others.Keywords: Allocation decisionrisk distributiongain-loss domainsocial value orientationself-other Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 For the options of risk allocation, a percentage refers to the proportion of an uncertain outcome to a total outcome allocated to oneself or another individual.2 We declare that there is no conflict of interest. We also confirm that the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines specified in the APA Code of Conduct and our national ethics guidelines. Please see the data and analysis codes at https://osf.io/zmwfc/?view_only=95de83989f50460c97477aa6cb5239b0.3 We conducted power analyses to demonstrate that our sample sizes have sufficient power in Experiments 1-3. We also ran additional analyses to demonstrate the even distribution of sample sizes across different conditions before and after filtering the data in Experiments 1 and 2. These are presented in the supplemental materials.4 We followed the incentive instructions to pair participants, calculate each participant’s final points, and awarded the three participants accordingly in each condition with the incentive instructions (in Experiments 1 and 2).5 We also ran additional analyses without the controls for the differences in the items and choices, and the results demonstrated consistent patterns between the results with and without controls, which suggests that the differences in the first-stage allocations did not significantly influence our results. Please see the relevant results in the section titled “Results without Controls for the Allocation Outcomes During the Initial Decisions in Experiments 1 and 2” in the supplemental materials.6 The percentage refers to the average difference of the selection likelihood of a specific risk-distribution option between the gain and loss conditions.
损益域和社会价值取向是风险分配决策的决定因素
人们往往比别人更少为自己做冒险的决定。我们研究了人们如何在自己和他人之间分配风险(即确定不确定结果与确定结果的比例)。我们还研究了收益(vs.损失)领域和社会价值取向作为风险分配的预测因素。三个实验的结果表明,参与者更有可能在自己和他人之间平均分担风险,而不是不平等地分配风险。在收益(相对于损失)领域,参与者为自己分配的风险更少,而为他人分配的风险更多,风险分配不平等。与皈依者相比,亲社会者更倾向于平均分配风险。我们还发现,与亲社会者相比,信仰者在不平等风险分配上的领域效应更强。因此,我们的研究结果阐明了风险分配、领域和社会价值取向对人际分配决策的影响,并强调了自己与他人之间的风险平等分配。关键词:分配决策风险分配损失领域社会价值取向自我他人披露声明作者未发现潜在利益冲突。注1在风险分配选项中,百分比是指不确定的结果占分配给自己或他人的总结果的比例我们声明不存在利益冲突。我们也确认稿件符合APA行为准则和我们国家伦理准则中规定的伦理准则。请参阅https://osf.io/zmwfc/?view_only=95de83989f50460c97477aa6cb5239b0.3上的数据和分析代码。我们在实验1-3中进行了功率分析,以证明我们的样本量具有足够的功率。我们还进行了额外的分析,以证明在实验1和2中过滤数据之前和之后,样本大小在不同条件下的均匀分布。这些都在补充材料中提出我们按照激励指示将参与者配对,计算每个参与者的最终得分,并根据激励指示在每种情况下相应地奖励三名参与者(实验1和2)我们还在没有控制的情况下对项目和选择的差异进行了额外的分析,结果显示了有控制和没有控制的结果之间的一致模式,这表明第一阶段分配的差异对我们的结果没有显著影响。相关结果见补充材料“实验1和实验2初始决策中分配结果不加控制的结果”部分百分比是指某一特定风险分配选项在收益和损失条件下的选择可能性的平均差值。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信