Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559779›Full record

ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2023

Be Careful When Using Peer-Influence on Nudging Solicitation: Evidence of Potential Negative Effect from a Sample of Chinese University Students.

Wuke Zhang, Pengtao Jiang, Ting Xu, Yuchen Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wuke ZhangBusiness School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-1213-413X
Pengtao JiangBusiness School, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Ting XuBusiness School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Yuchen YeBusiness School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Peer information is now commonly used in solicitation. However, scholars have long focused on testing its effectiveness on increasing the donation amount without paying attention to its potential negative effects on donors. Thus, the current study employs high vs low peer donation amount (HPDA vs LPDA) information to explore its effect on "how-much-to-donate" decisions and the corresponding neural and psychological reactions at the same time. Participants and Methods: Student samples from a Chinese university and behavioral experiments with the event-related potential (ERP) method were used in this study. Results: The behavioral results are consistent with previous research in which HPDA was positively associated with higher donation levels. ERP results show the mechanisms behind decision-making can be summarized into a cognitive approach represented by cost-benefit analysis and an affective approach represented by reward perception. More surprisingly, in contrast to the behavioral results, LPDA elicits higher level of reward perception than HPDA. Conclusion: The results indicate that although HPDA leads to higher levels of donation, donors do not show higher levels of reward anticipation at the neurological level, indicating the increment of donation may come at the cost of donors. Theoretical and practical implications are also discussed.

Indexed as

average peer donation amountERPevent-related potential“how-much-to-donate” decisiononline donationsolicitation

Identifiers

PMID37559779
PMCPMC10408720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.