Content area
Abstract
The goal of this study was to test whether the risk-as-feelings and empathy gap theories—the emotion account—explain self-other differences in decision-making under risk. To test the emotion account, mediational and moderation analyses were conducted. Six hundred and three participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. They were presented with one text scenario portraying hypothetical relationship scenario involving romantic prospects. They were asked to make a decision for themselves, make one for a friend, or predict the friend’s decision. Then, they rated the likelihood of making the riskier option, negative and positive emotions, and alertness. Results showed that participants were more risk taking in the surrogate or in the prediction condition than in the self condition. Participants felt more positive emotions in the surrogate condition than in the self condition. Self-other differences in decisions were partially mediated by positive emotions. More importantly, more than 80% of self-other differences in decisions remained unexplained, indicating that the explanatory power of the emotion account was limited. Overall, this study showed partial support for the emotion account.
