Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk

被引:45
作者
Batteux, Eleonore [1 ]
Ferguson, Eamonn [1 ]
Tunney, Richard J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nottingham, Nottingham, England
[2] Aston Univ, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE; LEVEL; WOULD; REAL;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0216566
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background Are we more risk-averse or risk-seeking when we make decisions on behalf of other people as opposed to ourselves? So far, findings have not been able to provide a clear and consistent answer. Method We propose a meta-analysis to assess whether self-other differences vary according to particular features of the decision. We reviewed 78 effect sizes from 49 studies (7,576 participants). Results There was no overall self-other difference, but there were moderating effects of domain and frame. Decisions in the interpersonal domain were more risk-averse for self than for other. Decisions in the medical domain were more risk-seeking for self than for other. There were no overall self-other differences in the financial domain, however there was a moderating effect of frame: decisions in a gain frame were more risk-averse for self than other whereas decisions in a loss frame were more risk-seeking for self than other. This effect of frame was slightly different overall and in the medical domain, where self-other differences occurred in a loss frame but not in a gain frame. Conclusion Future work should continue to investigate how the specific content and context of the decision impacts self-other differences in order to understand the effects of domain and frame we report.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 70 条
[21]   Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design [J].
Charness, Gary ;
Gneezy, Uri ;
Kuhn, Michael A. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2012, 81 (01) :1-8
[22]  
Cohen J, 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA, P283
[23]  
Cumming G., 2012, Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis
[24]   Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
BIOMETRICS, 2000, 56 (02) :455-463
[25]   Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures [J].
Egger, M ;
Smith, GD ;
Phillips, AN .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7121) :1533-1537
[26]  
Fernandez-Duque D, 2007, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V2, P1
[27]   Doc, What Would You Do If You Were Me? On Self-Other Discrepancies in Medical Decision Making [J].
Garcia-Retamero, Rocio ;
Galesic, Mirta .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED, 2012, 18 (01) :38-51
[28]   WITHIN-SUBJECTS DESIGNS - TO USE OR NOT TO USE [J].
GREENWALD, AG .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1976, 83 (02) :314-320
[29]   The effects of real versus hypothetical reward on delay and probability discounting [J].
Hinvest, Neal S. ;
Anderson, Ian M. .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 63 (06) :1072-1084
[30]   Chicken hepatic response to chronic heat stress using integrated transcriptome and metabolome analysis [J].
Jastrebski, Sara F. ;
Lamont, Susan J. ;
Schmidt, Carl J. .
PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (07)