IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v22y2019i2p209-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No one left behind: how social distance affects life-saving decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Yufeng Zhang
  • Haotian Zhou
  • Mo Luan
  • Hong Li

Abstract

Extant research on social distance and decision-making under risk has mostly focused on how people reach different decisions for themselves than others under the same circumstances. This research adds to this literature by studying how the social distance between the decision-maker and people in danger influences risk preference in life-saving domain. We found that decision-makers tend to be more risk-seeking when the lives of close others are at stake than distant others regardless of whether the situation is framed in terms of loss or gain. However, the effect of social distance on risk preference was eliminated when it was the responsibility of the decision-makers rather than the chance to pick the potential victims to save. By analyzing the shape of value function, we provided preliminary evidence for the hypothesis that decision-makers engage in feeling-based evaluation when close others’ lives are at stake but calculation-based evaluation when distant others’ lives are at stake, which could account for the effect of social distance on risk preference documented in this research. A final experiment yielded direct evidence that evaluation mode mediates the relationship between social distance and risk preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Yufeng Zhang & Haotian Zhou & Mo Luan & Hong Li, 2019. "No one left behind: how social distance affects life-saving decision making," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 209-219, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:2:p:209-219
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1378244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2017.1378244
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2017.1378244?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:2:p:209-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.