{"title":"群体间社会比较对自我和群体风险决策的影响","authors":"Lingchao Sun, Yilin Xiao, Wenxu Mao, Bohan Cao, Huapei Mao, Dawei Wang, Yixin Hu","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2023.2220414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study aims to explore the influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and for groups in intergroup contexts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings may support the selective accessibility model and provide an interpretation with responsibility alleviation for self-group differences in risk decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"2220414"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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, Huapei Mao, Dawei Wang, Yixin Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00049530.2023.2220414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study aims to explore the influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and for groups in intergroup contexts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings may support the selective accessibility model and provide an interpretation with responsibility alleviation for self-group differences in risk decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2220414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175692/pdf/\",\"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\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
