How many masks do you buy? A simple dilemma task to differentiate between individual and social rationality.

Zhixu Yang, Yixin Wang, Ziqiang Xin
Author Information
  1. Zhixu Yang: School of Labor Economics, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China.
  2. Yixin Wang: School of Sociology and Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China.
  3. Ziqiang Xin: Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100872 China.

Abstract

Prior measures on rationality overlook the individual differences in the weight people place on social rationality versus individual rationality. The current research develops and validates an individual-collective dilemma task (ICDT) to distinguish different rationality types. It was translated from a reality that, at the beginning of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, a global shortage of face masks occurred because of the jumping demand for masks as a precautionary measure. The ICDT asked participants to decide how many masks to buy in front of a shortfall of masks, which facilitated coping with a hypothetical epidemic outbreak. Based on the number of masks they selected, three rationality groups emerged. preferred self-interest goals to goals of social interests; prioritized social-interest goals; assigned equal weight to both goals. The ICDT showed sound test-retest reliability and criterion-related, discriminant, and convergent validity. The present research contributes to the literature on rationality assessment and offers policy-makers a valid and reliable tool to understand the distribution of rationalists among the public.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03338-x.

Keywords

References

  1. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 03;21:100329 [PMID: 32292898]
  2. Science. 2008 Mar 21;319(5870):1687-8 [PMID: 18356530]
  3. J Appl Psychol. 2004 Dec;89(6):946-59 [PMID: 15584834]
  4. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 16;8(10):e76671 [PMID: 24146907]
  5. Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38 [PMID: 13310708]
  6. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2020 Dec;12(4):1000-1018 [PMID: 32875730]
  7. J Appl Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(6):1253-9 [PMID: 17100482]
  8. Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20 [PMID: 19673146]
  9. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 [PMID: 843571]
  10. Psychol Sci. 2014 Sep;25(9):1699-711 [PMID: 25037961]
  11. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Oct;73(4):733-46 [PMID: 9325591]
  12. Science. 1990 Dec 21;250(4988):1665-8 [PMID: 2270480]
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4): [PMID: 33431650]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0rationalitymasksgoalsindividualsocialICDTweightresearchdilemmataskCOVID-19outbreakmanyPriormeasuresoverlookdifferencespeopleplaceversuscurrentdevelopsvalidatesindividual-collectivedistinguishdifferenttypestranslatedrealitybeginningongoingglobalshortagefaceoccurredjumpingdemandprecautionarymeasureaskedparticipantsdecidebuyfrontshortfallfacilitatedcopinghypotheticalepidemicBasednumberselectedthreegroupsemergedpreferredself-interestinterestsprioritizedsocial-interestassignedequalshowedsoundtest-retestreliabilitycriterion-relateddiscriminantconvergentvaliditypresentcontributesliteratureassessmentofferspolicy-makersvalidreliabletoolunderstanddistributionrationalistsamongpublicSupplementaryInformation:onlineversioncontainssupplementarymaterialavailable101007/s12144-022-03338-xbuy?simpledifferentiateDilemmaRationalitySelf-interestSocial

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.