Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2013, Vol. 21 Issue (5) : 879-885     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00879
Regular Articles |
Does Standers-by Always See More Than Gamesters?A Review on the Self-other Decision Making Differences
LIU Cuicui;CHEN Bin;LIU Leixin;YUAN Xianxue;WANG Zuojun
(College of Teacher Education, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)
Download: PDF(209 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Numerous studies have examined the differences between the conditions of giving advice to others, making decisions for others, and making decisions for oneself. An important reason for researchers to examine the differences between the three conditions, arguable, is to determine which one is more likely leading to rational or optimized choice. The research in the literature, on one hand, revealed that people experience choice overload, display omission bias and confirmatory bias when they make decisions for themselves, but do not show these decision biases when they make decisions on behalf of others or give advice for others. Some research, on the other hand, has demonstrated that more compromise effect and predecisional distortion were displayed when people make decisions on behalf of others than make decisions for themselves. These results suggest that standers-by does not always see more than gamesters. Construction level theory, regulatory focus theory and emotional factors were proposed to explain the differences between decision making for oneself or for others. We suggest future research examine and explain the differences between decision making for oneself and for others in a more integrated way and focus on examining the mechanism of self-other decision making by employing methods such as eye tracking and functional magnetic resonance imaging to provide a much richer description of the decision process.
Keywords self-other decision making      risk preference      decision biases      regulatory-focus theory      construal level theory     
Corresponding Authors: WANG Zuojun   
Issue Date: 15 May 2013
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
LIU Cuicui
CHEN Bin
LIU Leixin
YUAN Xianxue
WANG Zuojun
Cite this article:   
LIU Cuicui,CHEN Bin,LIU Leixin, et al. Does Standers-by Always See More Than Gamesters?A Review on the Self-other Decision Making Differences[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(5): 879-885.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00879     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2013/V21/I5/879
[1] LI Ming-Hui, RAO Li-Lin.  Moral judgment from construal level theory perspective[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1423-1430.
[2] WANG Caiyu; LEI Li; WU Bo. The influence of temporal reference on inaction inertia of green innovative consumption[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(1): 1-11.
[3] LU Jingyi; WANG Yue. The effect of psychological insecurity on risk preference[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 676-683.
[4] ZHANG Yue; XIN Ziqiang. Priming research in social psychology: Approaches and challenges[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 844-854.
[5] DENG Ying; XU Fu-Ming; LI Ou; SHI Yan-Wei; LIU Cheng-Hao. The framing effect on social preferences[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(4): 622-632.
[6] ZHANG Hongwei;LI Ye. Moral Behavior under Two Kinds of Moral Self-regulation Mechanisms[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(7): 1178-1187.
[7] LIU Yongfang;WANG Peng;ZHUANG Jinying;ZHONG Jun;SUN Qingzhou;LIU Yi. Self-Other Differences in Decision-Making: Questions, Studies and Reflection[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(4): 580-587.
[8] YAN Jin;LOU Chunhua. Decision-making under Ethical Temptation: How Construal Level Theory May Help[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(11): 2047-2056.
[9] LI Yan-Chen; ZHOU Ting-Rui; ZHOU Xiu. Theoretical Models of Multisensory Cues Integration……WEN Xiao-Hui, LIU Qiang, SUN Hong-Jin, et al.(666)
Construal Level Theory: From Temporal Distance to Psychological Distanc
[J]. , 2009, 17(04): 667-677.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech