Upload
arnold-paul
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dominance of Competence in Member Selection under Dilemma Situation
Lestin, Y. H. Lee, Winton, W. T. Au, & Fion, W. K. Law
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Aug 2009 13th ICSD @ Kyoto
Two universal factors• Two universal factors
1. Warmth, honest, etc, termed as morality aspect
2. Clever, skillful, etc, termed as competence aspect
• Similar with might vs morality distinction• Assumption
– The two aspects summarize the types of information in social dilemma
Morality vs CompetenceWhich factor is more influential?From impression formation research
Morality importance hypothesis (Bruin & Van Lange, 2000)
Morality > Competence
Morality vs Competence• Goal dependent (Wojciszke, 1998)
– Morality related goal or impression formation• Morality more influential
– Competence related goal • Competence more influential
• Is social dilemma a morality-related or competence-related context?
Aim of the current researchTo compare the importance of morality and
competence information in member selection under social dilemma context
• 303 participants
• 14-26 players
• 10 course scenario games
• Project vs Examination
• Time as resource
6 9
Group Project(Cooperation)
Individual Examination (Defection)
12
Method – experimental setup
• 2 Tasks– Form group– Allocate
timeAnonymity2
informationResourceCooperation
Rate
Number of hours available (Resource represent competence) 6912
Average allocation ratio (Cooperation Rate represent morality)
0 – 100%
HH: 9 hrs.
H: (38%)
H: 9 hrs.
(38%)No info Resources info Cooperation info Both info
120 seconds to select members
DV - popularity
Popularity = 50% Popularity = 100%
Key findingsPrediction of popularity when both information displayed
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Cooperation Rate
Resource
Standardize value of the corresponding variables (zCR/zRes)
Popu
lari
ty Slope=0.05
Slope=0.10
IQ: 200 IQ: 100
IQ: 200 IQ: 100 Criminal history No
criminal history
IQ: 200 IQ: 100 Gender: Male Gender:
Female
Effect of Cooperation Rate in CR only and Both condition
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Cooperation Rate Only
Both Condition
Standardized Cooperation Rate
Popu
lari
ty
Slope=0.09
Slope=0.05
Effect of Resource in Res Only and Both Condition
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Resource Only
Both Condition
Standardized Resource
Pop
ula
rity
Slope=0.097
Slope=0.09
Potential concerns
Concern 1Resource x Cooperation Rate = expected
resource allocationSingle combinatory effect or 2 separate effect?
Regression show that the interaction term of resource x cooperation rate was n.s. t(2556) = -.12, p = .91
Concern 2Resource and Cooperate rate measured in
different scaleResource: discrete, 6, 9 12Cooperation Rate: continuous, 0-100%
Cooperation Rate not manipulatedAlternative explanation
Concern 2A follow-up to eliminate this alternativeSame scenarioOnly member selectionThe target to be selected are artificial targetsResource and Cooperation Rate
Measure in same scale (0-100)Counterbalanced and manipulated
Concern 2Counterbalance by Mirrored target
Resource = 30 hr, Cooperation Rate = 60%Resource = 60 hr, Cooperation Rate = 30%
Mirrored targets with more resource was selected more frequently than targets with higher cooperation rate
Preferred target # of participants
Higher Resource 37
Higher Cooperation Rate 13
No Preference 4
Concern 3Maybe our scenario is special!
We collected impression rating using the second paradigm (artificial targets)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
CR Res
Target Type
Sta
ndar
dize
d sc
ore
Behavoiral Choice
Impression Rating
Pop
ula
rity
ConclusionCompetence
More influential in member selectionLess affected by the existence of Morality
informationThe effect is
Not due to the combinatory nature of cooperation rate and resource
Not because we used different scaleNot because our scenario is special
ConclusionCompetence affect people’s decision stronger
than morality information in selecting member under social dilemma situation