Ignorance, intention and stochastic outcomes☆

Friedrichsen, Jana; Momsen, Katharina; Piasenti, Stefano

doi:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101913

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings do not seem to support the notion of an outcome bias in intention inference, as acceptance rates were significantly higher for unfair offers with ambiguous intentions than for those with selfish intentions. This is in line with the results of Friedrichsen et al ( 2022 ), who also found no evidence of an outcome bias in a reciprocating decision. We further calculated each participant's intention propensity to unfair offers based on the acceptance rates.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Intention affects fairness processing: Evidence from behavior and representational similarity analysis of event‐related potential signals

Qin

et al. 2023

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ultimatum game, the responder must decide between pursuing self‐interest and insisting on fairness, and these choices are affected by the intentions of the proposer. However, the time course of this social decision‐making process is unclear. Representational similarity analysis (RSA) is a useful technique for linking brain activity with rich behavioral data sets. In this study, electroencephalography (EEG) was used to measure the time course of neural responses to proposed allocation schemes with different intentions. Twenty‐eight participants played an ultimatum game as responders. They had to choose between accepting and rejecting the fair or unfair money allocation schemes of proposers. The schemes were offered based on the proposer's selfish intention (monetary gain), altruistic intention (donation to charity), or ambiguous intention (unknown to the responder). We used a spatiotemporal RSA and inter‐subject RSA (IS‐RSA) to explore the connections between event‐related potentials (ERPs) after offer presentation and intention presentation with four types of behavioral data (acceptance, response time, fairness ratings, and pleasantness ratings). The spatiotemporal RSA results revealed that only response time variation was linked with the difference in ERPs at 432–592 ms after offer presentation on the posterior parietal and prefrontal regions. Meanwhile, the IS‐RSA results found a significant association between inter‐individual differences in response time and differences in ERP activity at 596–812 ms after the presentation of ambiguous intention, particularly in the prefrontal region. This study expands the intention‐based reciprocal model to the third‐party context and demonstrates that brain activity can represent response time differences in social decision‐making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Intention affects fairness processing: Evidence from behavior and representational similarity analysis of event‐related potential signals

Qin

et al. 2023

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of the articles that were excluded during the full-text screening did not meet one or more of the inclusion criteria ( n = 89, see Figure 2). Additionally, we excluded three studies measuring altruistic behavior, using a continuous outcome variable (Friedrichsen et al, 2022; Kajackaite, 2015; Toribio-Flórez et al, 2023). The continuous measures of altruistic behavior do not allow a straightforward categorization of what counts as a selfish/altruistic choice.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Vu,

Soraperra,

Leib

et al. 2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People sometimes avoid information about the impact of their actions as an excuse to be selfish. Such "willful ignorance" reduces altruistic behavior and has detrimental effects in many consumer and organizational contexts. We report the first meta-analysis on willful ignorance, testing the robustness of its impact on altruistic behavior and examining its underlying motives. We analyze 33,603 decisions made by 6,531 participants in 56 different treatment effects, all employing variations of an experimental paradigm assessing willful ignorance. Meta-analytic results reveal that 40% of participants avoid easily obtainable information about the consequences of their actions on others, leading to a 15.6-percentage point decrease in altruistic behavior compared to when information is provided. We discuss the motives behind willful Psychological Bulletin

show abstract

“…In contrast, Regner (2018) and Regner and Matthey (2017) reported more selfish choices from second-movers. Furthermore, Friedrichsen et al (2020) showed that reciprocity was lower when the first-mover's intentions were hidden.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding the cost of your conscience: belief dependent preferences and information acquisition

Rimbaud,

Soldà

2024

Exp Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pro-social individuals face a trade-off between their monetary and moral motives. Hence, they may be tempted to exploit the uncertainty in their decision environment in order to reconcile this trade-off. In this paper, we investigate whether individuals with belief-dependent preferences avoid the monetary cost of behaving according to their moral standards by strategically acquiring information about others'expectations. We test the predictions of an information acquisition model in an online experiment. We use a modified trust-game in which we introduce uncertainty about the second movers' beliefs about first-movers' expectations. Our design enables to (i) identify participants with belief-based preferences and (ii) investigate their information acquisition strategy.Consistent with our predictions of subjective preferences, we find that most individuals classified as belief-dependent strategically select their source of information to avoid the cost of their conscience.

show abstract

Ignorance, intention and stochastic outcomes☆

Cited by 9 publications

References 47 publications

Intention affects fairness processing: Evidence from behavior and representational similarity analysis of event‐related potential signals

Intention affects fairness processing: Evidence from behavior and representational similarity analysis of event‐related potential signals

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Avoiding the cost of your conscience: belief dependent preferences and information acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About