Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-hsbzg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-23T00:34:59.324Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Factors Moderate Self-Other Discrepancies in Decision Making? Results from a Vaccination Scenario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2016

Dafina Petrova ,
Rocio Garcia-Retamero  and
Joop van der Pligt
Dafina Petrova*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Joop van der Pligt
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dafina Petrova. University of Granada - Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center. Granada (Spain). E-mail: dafinapetrova@ugr.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When we make risky decisions for others, we tend to follow social norms about risks. This often results in making different decisions for others than we would make for ourselves in a similar situation (i.e., self-other discrepancies). In an experiment, we investigated self-other discrepancies in young adults’ decisions to purchase a vaccine against a sexually-transmitted virus for themselves or for another person (i.e., the target of the decision). When the target’s preferences were in line with social norms, surrogates showed large self-other discrepancies in line with these norms. When the target’s preferences were contrary to social norms, surrogates did not show self-other discrepancies in line with these preferences; instead they still followed social norms, F(1, 140) = 21.45, p < .001, ηp2 = .13. Surrogates with lower numeracy, F(2, 128) = 3.44, p = .035, ηp2 = .05, and higher empathy, F(2, 128) = 3.72, p = .027, ηp2 = .06, showed self-other discrepancies more in line with the target’s preferences, even when these were contrary to the norm. Surrogates whose own risk attitudes were contrary to social norms showed larger self-other discrepancies, F(1, 128) = 5.38, p = .022, ηp2 = .04. These results demonstrate that perceived social norms about risk can predict self-other discrepancies in risky decisions, even when the target’s preferences are known and at odds with the social norm. Further, the surrogates’ numeracy, empathy, and propensity to take risks influence the extent to which risky decisions for others resemble risky decisions for oneself.

Keywords

attitudes towards riskdecision makingempathynumeracyself-other discrepancies
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E52
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atanasov, P. D. (2015). Risk preferences in choices for self and others: Meta analysis and research directions. Social Science Research Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1682569 Google Scholar
Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003). Risk taking in relationships: Differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 121–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
Brody, J. L., Annett, R. D., Scherer, D. G., Perryman, M. L., & Cofrin, K. M. W. (2005). Comparisons of adolescent and parent willingness to participate in minimal and above-minimal risk pediatric asthma research protocols. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 229–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.026 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, S., Rosman, A., Seleski, S., Garcia, M., Lee, S., Barnes, J., & Schwartz, A. (2012). A medical risk attitude subscale for DOSPERT. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 189–195.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. B., & Coups, E. J. (2006). Emotions and preventive health behavior: Worry, regret, and influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, 25, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25–47.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, N. F., Slovic, P., & Peters, E. M. (2009). The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis, 29, 1473–1488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01279.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dore, R. A., Stone, E. R., & Buchanan, C. M. (2014). A social values analysis of parental decision making. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 148, 477–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.808603 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagerlin, A., Ditto, P. H., Danks, J. H., & Houts, R. M. (2001). Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychology, 20, 166–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.20.3.166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faro, D., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2006). Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others’ preferences under risk. Management Science, 52, 529–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). Do low-numeracy people avoid shared decision making? Health Psychology, 30, 336–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022723 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Retamero, R., Andrade, A., Sharit, J., & Ruiz, J. G. (2015). Is patient’s numeracy related to physical and mental health? Medical Decision Making, 35, 501–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15578126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2013). Communicating health risks with visual aids. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 392–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413491570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1323–1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2011). Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 245–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2012). Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self–other discrepancies in medical decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(1), 38–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026018 Google Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2014). On defensive decision making: How doctors make decisions for their patients. Health Expectations, 17, 664–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00791.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Retamero, R., Okan, Y., & Maldonado, A. (2015). The impact of depression on self–other discrepancies in decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(1), 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghazal, S., Cokely, E. T., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self–others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1), 45–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kray, L. J. (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 82–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2903 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kray, L., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 207–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<207::AID-BDM322>3.0.CO;2-P 3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, R. E., & Brauner, D. J. (2009). Deciding for others: Limitations of advance directives, substituted judgment, and best interest. Virtual Mentor, 11, 571–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2009.11.8.ccas1-0908 Google ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24, S49–S56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A. Z., & Arkes, H. R. (2008). Patient and surrogate disagreement in end-of-life decisions: Can surrogates accurately predict patients’ preferences? Medical Decision Making, 28, 524–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08315244 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, E. (2012). Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrova, D., van der Pligt, J., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Feeling the numbers: On the interplay between risk, affect, and numeracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 191–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E., & Wendler, D. (2006). The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 493–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, E. R., & Allgaier, L. (2008). A social values analysis of self–other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 114–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530802208832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, E. R., Choi, Y., de Bruin, W. B., & Mandel, D. R. (2013). I can take the risk, but you should be safe: Self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 250–267.Google Scholar
Stone, E. R., Yates, A. J., & Caruthers, A. S. (2002). Risk taking in decision making for others versus the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1797–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Västfjäll, D., Peters, E., & Starmer, C. (2011). Numeracy, incidental affect, and the construction of prices, (Report No. 11–01). Eugene, OR: Decision Research.Google Scholar
Wray, L. D., & Stone, E. R. (2005). The role of self-esteem and anxiety in decision making for self versus others in relationships. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 125–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Petrova supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Petrova supplementary material(File)
File 421 KB