Dataset Information

Communication in context: Interpreting promises in an experiment on competition and trust.

ABSTRACT: How much do people lie, and how much do people trust communication when lying is possible? An important step toward answering these questions is understanding how communication is interpreted. This paper establishes in a canonical experiment that competition can alter the shared communication code: the commonly understood meaning of messages. We study a sender-receiver game in which the sender dictates how to share $10 with the receiver, if the receiver participates. The receiver has an outside option and decides whether to participate after receiving a nonbinding offer from the sender. Competition for play between senders leads to higher offers but has no effect on actual transfers, expected transfers, or receivers' willingness to play. The higher offers signal that sharing will be equitable without the expectation that they should be followed literally: Under competition "6 is the new 5."

SUBMITTER: Casella A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798344 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Communication in context: Interpreting promises in an experiment on competition and trust.

Casella Alessandra A Kartik Navin N Sanchez Luis L Turban Sébastien S

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20180116 5

How much do people lie, and how much do people trust communication when lying is possible? An important step toward answering these questions is understanding how communication is interpreted. This paper establishes in a canonical experiment that competition can alter the shared communication code: the commonly understood meaning of messages. We study a sender-receiver game in which the sender dictates how to share $10 with the receiver, if the receiver participates. The receiver has an outside ...[more]

PMID: 29339524

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the language expectancy theory and the communication accommodation theory, health information seekers' trust evaluations of Web-based videos are determined by interplays between content and seekers' expectations on vloggers' appropriate language use in specific contexts of Web-based communication. OBJECTIVES:Two investigations focused on differences both between vloggers' language styles and between users' general trust in specific Web-based platforms to investigate how the context of Web-based communication can be characterized (research question, RQ1). Thereafter, we investigated whether information uncertainty, vloggers' language style, and context of Web-based communication affect seekers' trust evaluations of videos (RQ2). METHODS:With a content analysis of 36 health videos from YouTube and Vimeo, we examined the extent of trust-related linguistic characteristics (ie, first-person and second-person pronouns). Additionally, we surveyed participants (n=151) on their trust in YouTube and Moodle (academic Web-based platform; RQ1). In an experiment, further participants (n=124) watched a video about nutrition myths and were asked to evaluate the information credibility, vloggers' trustworthiness, and accommodation of language by vloggers (RQ2). Following a 3 × 2 × 2 mixed design, vloggers' explanations contained unambiguous (confirming or disconfirming) or ambiguous (neither confirming nor disconfirming) evidence on the myths (within factor). Furthermore, vloggers used YouTube-typical language (many first-person pronouns) or formal language (no first-person pronouns), and videos were presented on YouTube or Moodle (between factors). RESULTS:The content analysis revealed that videos on YouTube contained more first-person pronouns than on Vimeo (F1,35=4.64; P=.04; ?p2=0.12), but no more second-person pronouns (F1,35=1.23; P=.23). Furthermore, when asked about their trust in YouTube or Moodle, participants trusted YouTube more than Moodle (t150?-9.63; all P?.001). In the experiment, participants evaluated information to be more credible when information contained unambiguous rather than ambiguous evidence (F2,116=9.109; P<.001; ?p2=0.14). Unexpectedly, information credibility did not depend on vloggers' language style or the video platform (F1,117?2.40; P?.06). Likewise, video's platform did not affect participants' evaluations of vloggers'trustworthiness (F1,117<0.18; P>.34). However, participants judged vloggers who used a YouTube-typical language as being more benevolent, and their language use as being more appropriate in both video platforms (F1,117?3.41; P?.03; ?p2?0.028). Moreover, participants rated the YouTube-typical (vs formal) language as more appropriate for Moodle, but they did not rate one or the other language style as more appropriate for YouTube (F1,117=5.40; P=.01; ?p2=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:This study shows that among specific Web-based contexts, users' typical language use can differ, as can their trust-related evaluations. In addition, health information seekers seem to be affected by providers' language styles in ways that depend on the Web-based communication context. Accordingly, further investigations that would identify concrete interplays between language style and communication context might help providers to understand whether additional information would help or hurt seekers' ability to accurately evaluate information.

Dataset Information

Communication in context: Interpreting promises in an experiment on competition and trust.

Publications

Communication in context: Interpreting promises in an experiment on competition and trust.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets