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

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Arvid Erlandsson
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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