Give what is required and take only what you need! The effect of framing on rule-breaking in social dilemmas

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/jdm.2023.18
Marc Wyszynski, A. Bauer
{"title":"Give what is required and take only what you need! The effect of framing on rule-breaking in social dilemmas","authors":"Marc Wyszynski, A. Bauer","doi":"10.1017/jdm.2023.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To investigate the impact of framing on rule-breaking in social dilemmas, we incorporated a rule in a 1-shot resource game with 2 framing treatments: in one frame, we offered a give-some dilemma (i.e., a variant of a public goods game), and in the other frame, a take-some dilemma (i.e., a variant of a commons dilemma game). In each frame, all participants were part of 1 single collective sharing a common good. Each participant was initially equipped with 1 of 5 different endowments of points from which they must give/were allowed to take amounts to/from the common good. The rule established outcome equality between participants by prescribing the exact amounts of what to give/take to/from the common good, which was finally divided equally among participants. Participants decided whether to cooperate and comply with the rule or to break the rule to their own advantage and to the detriment of the collective (i.e., giving lower/taking higher amounts). The results of an online experiment with 202 participants showed a significantly higher proportion of individuals breaking the rule in the take-some dilemma than in the give-some dilemma. In addition, endowment size influenced the proportion of rule-breaking behavior in the take-some dilemma. However, the average amounts of points not given/taken too much were not different between the 2 dilemma types.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.18","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To investigate the impact of framing on rule-breaking in social dilemmas, we incorporated a rule in a 1-shot resource game with 2 framing treatments: in one frame, we offered a give-some dilemma (i.e., a variant of a public goods game), and in the other frame, a take-some dilemma (i.e., a variant of a commons dilemma game). In each frame, all participants were part of 1 single collective sharing a common good. Each participant was initially equipped with 1 of 5 different endowments of points from which they must give/were allowed to take amounts to/from the common good. The rule established outcome equality between participants by prescribing the exact amounts of what to give/take to/from the common good, which was finally divided equally among participants. Participants decided whether to cooperate and comply with the rule or to break the rule to their own advantage and to the detriment of the collective (i.e., giving lower/taking higher amounts). The results of an online experiment with 202 participants showed a significantly higher proportion of individuals breaking the rule in the take-some dilemma than in the give-some dilemma. In addition, endowment size influenced the proportion of rule-breaking behavior in the take-some dilemma. However, the average amounts of points not given/taken too much were not different between the 2 dilemma types.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
给你需要的,只拿你需要的!社会困境中框架对规则破坏的影响
为了研究在社会困境中框架对规则破坏的影响,我们在一个单次资源游戏中加入了一条规则,并采用了两种框架处理:在一个框架中,我们提供了一个给予困境(即公共物品游戏的变体),在另一个框架中,我们提供了一个接受困境(即公共困境游戏的变体)。在每个框架中,所有参与者都是共享共同利益的单一集体的一部分。每个参与者最初都配备了5种不同的点数禀赋中的1种,他们必须从这些点数中给予/被允许从共同利益中获得数量。该规则通过规定给予/获取/从共同利益中获得的确切数量,最终在参与者之间平均分配,从而在参与者之间建立了结果平等。参与者决定是合作并遵守规则,还是为了自己的利益而破坏规则,损害集体利益(即,给予更少/获得更多)。一项有202名参与者参与的在线实验结果显示,在“索取”困境中违反规则的比例明显高于“给予”困境。此外,禀赋规模也影响了“拿一些”困境中违反规则行为的比例。然而,两种困境类型之间的平均得分并没有什么不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1