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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.