ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2023
The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts.
Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Being the Best, or With the Best: A Developmental Examination of Children's Choices in a Social Comparison Dilemma.Developmental science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The current study aims to explore the influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and for groups in intergroup contexts. Method: Two experiments with the within-subjects design of 2 (social comparison: upward comparison, downward comparison) × 3 (decision-maker role: for "me", for "us", for "them") were conducted in this study. Experiment 1 focused on the ingroup contexts, and experiment 2 focused on the outgroup contexts. Results: (1) in outgroup contexts, individuals are more risk-seeking in upward comparison conditions than in downward comparison conditions. However, the difference disappears in ingroup contexts. (2) Making decisions for "them" is riskier than making decisions for "me" and for "us" with no significant differences between the latter two and consistent across intergroup contexts. (3) The difference in risk decisions made amid upward and downward comparisons is amplified for decisions made for groups. Conclusion: The findings may support the selective accessibility model and provide an interpretation with responsibility alleviation for self-group differences in risk decision-making.
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.