Yang Zhixu, Wang Yixin, Xin Ziqiang
School of Labor Economics, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China.
School of Sociology and Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China.
Curr Psychol. 2022 Jun 20:1-10. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03338-x.
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.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03338-x.
先前关于合理性的衡量方法忽视了人们在社会合理性与个人合理性权重方面的个体差异。当前的研究开发并验证了一种个体-集体困境任务（ICDT）来区分不同的合理性类型。它源自一个现实情况，即在当前新冠疫情爆发初期，由于作为预防措施的口罩需求激增，全球出现了口罩短缺。ICDT要求参与者在口罩短缺的情况下决定购买多少口罩，这有助于应对假设的疫情爆发。根据他们选择的口罩数量，出现了三个合理性群体。 优先考虑自身利益目标而非社会利益目标； 优先考虑社会利益目标； 对两个目标给予同等权重。ICDT显示出良好的重测信度以及与标准相关的、区分性的和收敛性效度。本研究为合理性评估文献做出了贡献，并为政策制定者提供了一个有效且可靠的工具，以了解公众中理性主义者的分布情况。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s12144-022-03338-x获取的补充材料。
