1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics

      ,
      Judgment and Decision Making
      Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recently, it has been suggested that people are spontaneously inclined to cooperate in social dilemmas, whereas defection requires effortful deliberation. From this assumption, we derive that defection should entail more cognitive conflict than cooperation. To test this hypothesis, the current study presents a first application of the response dynamics paradigm (i.e., mouse-tracking) to social dilemmas. In a fully incentivized lab experiment, mouse movements were tracked while participants played simple two-person social dilemma games with two options (cooperation and defection). Building on previous research, curvature of mouse movements was taken as an indicator of cognitive conflict. In line with the hypothesis of less cognitive conflict in cooperation, response trajectories were more curved (towards the non-chosen option) when individuals defected than when they cooperated. In other words, the cooperative option exerted more “pull” on mouse movements in case of defection than the non-cooperative option (defection) did in case of cooperation. This effect was robust across different types of social dilemmas and occurred even in the prisoner’s dilemma, where defection was predominant on the choice level. Additionally, the effect was stronger for dispositional cooperators as measured by the Honesty-Humility factor of the HEXACO personality model. As such, variation in the effect across individuals could be accounted for through cooperativeness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

          G*Power (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996) was designed as a general stand-alone power analysis program for statistical tests commonly used in social and behavioral research. G*Power 3 is a major extension of, and improvement over, the previous versions. It runs on widely used computer platforms (i.e., Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X 10.4) and covers many different statistical tests of the t, F, and chi2 test families. In addition, it includes power analyses for z tests and some exact tests. G*Power 3 provides improved effect size calculators and graphic options, supports both distribution-based and design-based input modes, and offers all types of power analyses in which users might be interested. Like its predecessors, G*Power 3 is free.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            lavaan: AnRPackage for Structural Equation Modeling

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences

              In the present article, we introduce OpenSesame, a graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. OpenSesame is free, open-source, and cross-platform. It features a comprehensive and intuitive graphical user interface and supports Python scripting for complex tasks. Additional functionality, such as support for eyetrackers, input devices, and video playback, is available through plug-ins. OpenSesame can be used in combination with existing software for creating experiments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Judgment and Decision Making
                Judgm. decis. mak.
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1930-2975
                November 2014
                January 01 2023
                November 2014
                : 9
                : 6
                : 510-522
                Article
                10.1017/S1930297500006392
                da17fb34-7444-4074-b165-48d27bc2b184
                © 2014

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article