scholarly journals Is a Rational Politics of Disaster Possible? Making Useful Decisions for Others in an Experimental Disaster Game

Author(s):  
Talbot M. Andrews ◽  
Andrew W. Delton ◽  
Reuben Kline
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Ueshima ◽  
Hugo Mercier ◽  
Tatsuya Kameda

How much inequality should be tolerated? How should the poorest be treated? Though sometimes conflated, concerns about inequality and the fate of the poorest involve different allocation principles with different sociopolitical implications. We tested whether deliberation—the core of democracy—influences reasoning about distributive principles. 322 participants faced allocation decisions for others between egalitarian (low variance in allocation), utilitarian (high total amount), and maximin (maximizing the welfare of the poorest) options. After their initial decisions, participants either reflected upon similar decisions solely or discussed them in pairs before facing the same choices again individually. Social, but not solitary, deliberation led to more maximin and fewer egalitarian choices, and this change lasted at least 5 months after the experiment. Conversation analyses of approximately 7,500 utterances suggest that some participants initially made egalitarian choices heuristically, when in fact they mostly cared about the poorest, and dialogue promoted more internally coherent maximin preferences.


Author(s):  
Jingyi Lu ◽  
Xuesong Shang ◽  
Bingjie Li

Abstract. Decisions made for others reflect not only decision-makers’ cognitive and emotional states but also decision-makers’ interpersonal concerns. People who make choices for others will potentially be blamed for unappealing outcomes by others. Therefore, we hypothesize that individuals will seek sure gains (which increase individuals’ responsibility for desirable outcomes) and avoid sure losses (which decrease individuals’ responsibility for undesirable outcomes) when making risky decisions for others more than when making such decisions for themselves. The results of two studies show that making decisions for others (vs. oneself) promotes risk-averse choices over gains. This effect may be driven by the perceived responsibility associated with different options. When both options exhibit variance in outcomes, such self–other difference disappears. However, no self–other difference over losses was observed. Taken together, our research highlights interpersonal concerns in making decisions for others, as well as the behavioral consequences of these concerns in decisions under risk.


2016 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 126-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian König-Kersting ◽  
Stefan T. Trautmann

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dafina Petrova ◽  
Rocio Garcia-Retamero ◽  
Joop van der Pligt

AbstractWhen 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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document