Beyond Outcomes The Influence of Inten5ons and Decep5on Simeon Schächtele, Tobias Gerstenberg & David A. Lagnado contact: t.gerstenberg@ucl.ac.uk Research Ques5ons Experiment 2: Stated Wheel Choice 1.  To what extent do people’s punishments and rewards in social interac5ons depend on outcomes and the inten5ons of their partner? -­‐ selectors misstate intenQons frequently -­‐ strategic overstatement depending on the wheel’s outcome 2. What if inten5ons can be decep5ve? Selector Experimental Game 18% 15% -­‐  selects the wheel -­‐  sees the outcome -­‐  sees the outcome -­‐  sees the (stated) Responder Selector -­‐  (states his wheel wheel choice choice) -­‐  (indicates believed choice) -­‐  receives payoff -­‐  makes costly adjustment (1:3), max. 5 token s5ngy wheel stated
2% 17% 81% Stated wheel choices actual
fair wheel generous wheel 10% 30% 67% 20% 60% 10% 20% 60% 20 | 10 15 | 15 10 | 20 30% 60% Part A Actual wheel choices -­‐ responders mistrust selectors (don’t believe statement in 62.5%) -­‐ correctly ‘guessed’ in 57.8% Responder Part B Different wheels and outcomes Experimental Setup Part A Part B s5ngy wheel Mean adjustments for different -­‐  random matching protocol -­‐  sequenQal strategy method stated wheel choices and outcomes fair wheel generous wheel -­‐  16 rounds, each R & S meet (3 x 3 combinaQon of wheels twice and outcomes) -­‐ mean investment: 0.59; mean adjustment: -­‐0.75 -­‐  played for real money -­‐  hypotheQcal -­‐ no adjustment = modal response (81/128) -­‐ 6 out of 8 parQcipants adjust at least once Experiment 1: Observed Wheel Choice -­‐ sQngy (41%), fair (47%), generous (12%) -­‐ Selector’s payoff acer adjustment: sQngy (10.11), fair (12.35), generous (12.47) Selector Wheel choices over 5me -­‐ intenQons influence adjustments more than outcomes -­‐ much stronger effects of intenQons compared to previous research (Cushman et al., 2009) à direct response vs. strategy method -­‐ negaQve reciprocity: sQngy intenQons punished, generous intenQons hardly rewarded -­‐ mean investment: 1.48; mean adjustment: -­‐3.91 -­‐ no adjustment = modal response (72/128) Responder -­‐ 7 out of 8 parQcipants adjust at least once Part A Experiment 1: Discussion Part B Experiment 2: -­‐ honesty effect: stated sQngy intenQons were punished less than observed sQngy intenQons -­‐ in Part B: Part A Selectors punish more than Part A Responders Future Work: -­‐ possibility of decepQve statement being revealed References Mean adjustments for different observed wheel choices and outcomes s5ngy wheel fair wheel generous wheel Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y. & Costa, J. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a “trembling hand” game. PLOS One, 8, 1-­‐7. Gerstenberg, T., Lagnado, D. A. & Kareev, Y. (2010). The dice are cast: The role of intended versus actual contribuQons in responsibility aSribuQon. CogSci Proceedings. Schächtele, S., Gerstenberg, T. & Lagnado, D. A. (2011). Beyond outcomes: The influence of intenQons and decepQon. CogSci Proceedings.