Reaction Times and Reflection in Social Dilemmas: Extreme Responses are Fast, But Not Intuitive

Evans, Anthony M.; Dillon, Kyle D.; Rand, David G.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2436750

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evans et al . () investigated whether reaction times follow an inverted‐U pattern, with extreme decisions (both selfish and cooperative) occurring more quickly than intermediate decisions. They suggest that extreme, rather than cooperative, decisions are intuitive; however, experimentally manipulating intuitive (vs. reflective) processing shows that this is not the case.…”

Section: Literature Overview and Main Behavioural Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Need More Time to Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia

Grolleau

Sutan²,

Harbi

et al. 2018

Bulletin of Econ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Literature Overview and Main Behavioural Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Need More Time to Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia

Grolleau

Sutan²,

Harbi

et al. 2018

Bulletin of Econ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous works on the relationship between RT and SVO specifically, focused on the Public Goods Game (PGG) 24 , 25 , Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, and Trust Games (playing the role of the trustee) 26 , concluding that highly cooperative and highly individualistic participants are faster to decide. The explanation for this result was associated with the level of conflict a person perceives when making a decision 23 , 27 – 31 , rather than the competition between contrasting cognitive processes like deliberation or intuition 32 . Indeed, the use of behavioural or physical observations (such as RT) directly to explain mental processes remains unclear because this relationship might miss sources of variability in both the experiment and the data 29 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…their response time (RT). RT has, for instance, been analysed in the Ultimatum Game 21 , 22 and the Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) game 23 . Previous works on the relationship between RT and SVO specifically, focused on the Public Goods Game (PGG) 24 , 25 , Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, and Trust Games (playing the role of the trustee) 26 , concluding that highly cooperative and highly individualistic participants are faster to decide.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fast deliberation is related to unconditional behaviour in iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma experiments

Montero-Porras

Lenaerts

Gallotti

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have different preferences for what they allocate for themselves and what they allocate to others in social dilemmas. These differences result from contextual reasons, intrinsic values, and social expectations. What is still an area of debate is whether these differences can be estimated from differences in each individual’s deliberation process. In this work, we analyse the participants’ reaction times in three different experiments of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma with the Drift Diffusion Model, which links response times to the perceived difficulty of the decision task, the rate of accumulation of information (deliberation), and the intuitive attitudes towards the choices. The correlation between these results and the attitude of the participants towards the allocation of resources is then determined. We observe that individuals who allocated resources equally are correlated with more deliberation than highly cooperative or highly defective participants, who accumulate evidence more quickly to reach a decision. Also, the evidence collection is faster in fixed neighbour settings than in shuffled ones. Consequently, fast decisions do not distinguish cooperators from defectors in these experiments, but appear to separate those that are more reactive to the behaviour of others from those that act categorically.

show abstract

“…Again, neither of these subsequent papers had been accepted for publication at the time that the meta‐analysis appeared, and so this correspondence between studies was not indicated in the summary of studies included in the meta‐analysis. We also note that various features of the data from the meta‐analysis not explored by Rand et al () are explicitly analyzed in subsequent papers (Evans, Dillon, & Rand, ; Rand, Kraft‐Todd, & Gruber, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Clarification Regarding Rand et al. (2015) “Social Context and the Dynamics of Cooperative Choice”

Rand

2015

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This note clarifies the relationship between the data described in Rand, Newman, and Wurzbacher (2015) (hereafter RNW) and the data in two related papers, as lags between submission, online publication, and print publication may create confusion for readers. All of the studies in question are follow-ups to Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012), investigating the effect of time constraint manipulations on cooperation in social dilemmas. RNW specifically explored whether this time constraint effect was altered by social context (partner's group membership in Study 1, cooperative versus competitive framing in Study 2).First, in the time between when RNW was initially submitted and when it ultimately appeared, the data from both studies in RNW were included in a personal meta-analysis of published and unpublished work examining the main effect of time constraints on cooperation . Specifically, RNW Study 1 corresponds to Experiment K in the meta-analysis, and RNW Study 2 corresponds to the pooled results of the two identical-in-design Experiments H and I in the meta-analysis. As RNW had not yet been accepted for publication at the time that the meta-analysis appeared, Experiments H, I, and K were not labeled as corresponding to RNW. 1 Second, following the online publication of RNW in 2014, but prior to the print publication of RNW in 2015, a follow-up paper compared the data from RNW Study 2 with another experiment manipulating competitive frame (Cone & Rand, 2014). This latter paper explicitly indicated that it included a reanalysis of data from RNW, but some readers might be confused by the fact that the follow-up paper has a 2014 publication date, while RNW has a 2015 publication date.Finally, although this does not involve any of the data from RNW, for completeness, it is also noted that Experiment G in the meta-analysis of corresponds to the experiment reported in Cone and Rand (2014); and the subset of data from Experiment L in which the comprehension questions were asked after the cooperation decision are a subset of the data reported in Rand and Kraft-Todd (2014) (additional participants were recruited for that study after the completion of the meta-analysis). Again, neither of these subsequent papers had been accepted for publication at the time that the meta-analysis appeared, and so this correspondence between studies was not indicated in the summary of studies included in the meta-analysis. We also note that various features of the data from the meta-analysis not explored by Rand et al. 1 Note that only participants who completed the demographics questionnaire were included in the analyses of RNW, as these analyses included demographic controls (whereas all participants were included in the meta-analysis). However, interpolating missing values for participants who did not complete the questionnaire and including them in the analyses does not qualitatively alter the conclusions of RNW (there continues to be a significant main effect of time pressure F(1, 878) = 4.42, p = 0.036, and no significant interaction ...

show abstract

Reaction Times and Reflection in Social Dilemmas: Extreme Responses are Fast, But Not Intuitive

Cited by 9 publications

References 114 publications

Do We Need More Time to Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia

Do We Need More Time to Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia

Fast deliberation is related to unconditional behaviour in iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma experiments

Clarification Regarding Rand et al. (2015) “Social Context and the Dynamics of Cooperative Choice”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About