ArticleScientific reports2022
Choosing for others changes dissociable computational mechanisms underpinning risky decision-making.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Deciding for others alters metacognition leading to responsibility aversion.Science advances · 2026Article
- Deciding for others diminishes model-based decision-making but depends on individual prosociality.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- Circadian photoreception influences loss aversion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Value-based neural representations predict social decision preferences.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Choices under risk often have consequences for ourselves and others. Yet, it is unclear how the other's identity (stranger, close friend, etc.) influences risky choices made on their behalf. In a mixed within and between subjects design, two participant groups made three series of risky economic decisions: for themselves, another person, or for both themselves and another person (i.e., shared outcomes). One group made choices involving a same-sex stranger (n = 29), the other made choices involving a same-sex close friend (n = 28). Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of computations underlying risky decision-making revealed that relative to choosing for themselves, people were more risk averse, loss averse, and consistent when choices involved another person. Partner identity was additionally crucial: people became risk neutral and more consistent when choosing for friends relative to strangers. These findings establish that the complexity of the social world is mirrored in its nuanced consequences for our choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.