Misrepresentation of group contributions undermines conditional cooperation in a human decision making experiment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van den Berg P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9296641 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In this paper we show experimentally that conditional cooperation, a phenomenon described in the private provision of public goods, is also present in group contests, where participants' contributions to their group performance partially determines if they overcome a rival group. This environment allows us to identify new determinants of conditional cooperation. We observe conditional cooperation in successful groups and in groups where members contribute more than rivals (even if they lose), but it vanishes in those groups that lose the contest due to low group performance. A random-effect linear panel regression analysis with an extensive set of controls confirms the findings.
| S-EPMC7757887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We experimentally investigate how different information about others' individual contributions affects people's willingness to cooperate in a one-shot linear public goods game. We find that when information about individual contributions is provided, contributions are generally higher than when only average information is available. This effect is particularly strong when others' individual contributions are relatively homogeneous. When both types of information are provided, this effect is moderated. In the case of individual feedback we find the willingness to contribute to be higher the lower the variation in others' contributions, but with pronounced heterogeneity in individuals' reactions. While the majority of people are mainly guided by others' average contributions, more people follow the bad example of a low contributor than the good example of a high contributor. Overall, we provide evidence that information (and lack thereof) about others' individual contributions affects people's willingness to cooperate in systematic ways.
| S-EPMC5788275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The success of our political institutions, environmental stewardship and evolutionary fitness all hinge on our ability to prioritize collective-interest over self-interest. Despite considerable interest in the neuro-cognitive processes that underlie group cooperation, the evidence to date is inconsistent. Several papers support models of prosocial restraint, while more recent work supports models of prosocial intuition. We evaluate these competing models using a sample of lesion patients with damage to brain regions previously implicated in intuition and deliberation. Compared to matched control participants (brain damaged and healthy controls), we found that patients with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) damage were less likely to cooperate in a modified public goods game, whereas patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) damage were more likely to cooperate. In contrast, we observed no association between cooperation and amygdala damage relative to controls. These findings suggest that the dlPFC, rather than the vmPFC or amygdala, plays a necessary role in group-based cooperation. These findings suggest cooperation does not solely rely on intuitive processes. Implications for models of group cooperation are discussed.
| S-EPMC5928404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reliable scientific knowledge is crucial for informing legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions in a variety of areas. To that end, scientific reviews of topical issues can be invaluable tools for informing productive discourse and decision-making, assuming these reviews represent the target body of scientific knowledge as completely, accurately, and objectively as possible. Unfortunately, not all reviews live up to this standard. As a case in point, Marino et al.'s [1] review regarding the welfare of killer whales in captivity contains methodological flaws and misrepresentations of the scientific literature, including problematic referencing, overinterpretation of the data, misleading word choice, and biased argumentation. These errors and misrepresentations undermine the authors' conclusions and make it impossible to determine the true state of knowledge of the relevant issues. To achieve the goal of properly informing public discourse and policy on this and other issues, it is imperative that scientists and science communicators strive for higher standards of analysis, argumentation, and objectivity, in order to clearly communicate what is known, what is not known, what conclusions are supported by the data, and where we are lacking the data necessary to draw reliable conclusions.
| S-EPMC7401611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To make decisions in a social context, humans have to predict the behavior of others, an ability that is thought to rely on having a model of other minds known as "theory of mind." Such a model becomes especially complex when the number of people one simultaneously interacts with is large and actions are anonymous. Here, we present results from a group decision-making task known as the volunteer's dilemma and demonstrate that a Bayesian model based on partially observable Markov decision processes outperforms existing models in quantitatively predicting human behavior and outcomes of group interactions. Our results suggest that in decision-making tasks involving large groups with anonymous members, humans use Bayesian inference to model the "mind of the group," making predictions of others' decisions while also simulating the effects of their own actions on the group's dynamics in the future.
| S-EPMC6881156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The formation of cooperative groups of agents with limited information-processing capabilities to solve complex problems together is a fundamental building principle that cuts through multiple scales in biology from groups of cells to groups of humans. Here, we study an experimental paradigm where a group of humans is joined together to solve a common sensorimotor task that cannot be achieved by a single agent but relies on the cooperation of the group. In particular, each human acts as a neuron-like binary decision-maker that determines in each moment of time whether to be active or not. Inspired by the population vector method for movement decoding, each neuron-like decision-maker is assigned a preferred movement direction that the decision-maker is ignorant about. From the population vector reflecting the group activity, the movement of a cursor is determined, and the task for the group is to steer the cursor into a predefined target. As the preferred movement directions are unknown and players are not allowed to communicate, the group has to learn a control strategy on the fly from the shared visual feedback. Performance is analyzed by learning speed and accuracy, action synchronization, and group coherence. We study four different computational models of the observed behavior, including a perceptron model, a reinforcement learning model, a Bayesian inference model and a Thompson sampling model that efficiently approximates Bayes optimal behavior. The Bayes and especially the Thompson model excel in predicting the human group behavior compared to the other models, suggesting that internal models are crucial for adaptive coordination. We discuss benefits and limitations of our paradigm regarding a better understanding of distributed information processing.
| S-EPMC7237467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Group decision-making is required in early life in educational settings and central to a well-functioning society. However, there is little research on group decision-making in adolescence, despite the significant neuro-cognitive changes during this period. Researchers have studied adolescent decision-making in 'static' social contexts, such as risk-taking in the presence of peers, and largely deemed adolescent decision-making 'sub-optimal'. It is not clear whether these findings generalise to more dynamic social contexts, such as the discussions required to reach a group decision. Here we test the optimality of group decision-making at different stages of adolescence. Pairs of male pre-to-early adolescents (8 to 13 years of age) and mid-to-late adolescents (14 to 17 years of age) together performed a low-level, perceptual decision-making task. Whenever their individual decisions differed, they were required to negotiate a joint decision. While there were developmental differences in individual performance, the joint performance of both adolescent groups was at adult levels (data obtained from a previous study). Both adolescent groups achieved a level of joint performance expected under optimal integration of their individual information into a joint decision. Young adolescents' joint, but not individual, performance deteriorated over time. The results are consistent with recent findings attesting to the competencies, rather than the shortcomings, of adolescent social behaviour.
| S-EPMC6197285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global health. A key part of addressing hesitancy is to ensure that public health messaging prioritises information that is considered important to the public. This study aimed to examine how different vaccine characteristics affect public preferences for vaccines in New Zealand, what trade-offs they are willing to make between different vaccine characteristics, and how their preferences are affected by their vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination status.MethodsAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit individual preferences about vaccines using the 1000minds platform. Members of the general population of New Zealand aged ≥ 18 years were invited to complete the DCE. Participants were asked to indicate their preference between two options showing different combinations of vaccine characteristics. Data on sociodemographic characteristics were collected. Beliefs were measured using the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale (VCBS) with scores ≥ 19 indicating strong vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. The DCE was analysed using the PAPRIKA method (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) and preferences compared between respondents with high versus low VCBS scores and vaccinated versus unvaccinated respondents for COVID-19.ResultsA total of 611 respondents from 15 regions completed the DCE. Mean (SD) age was 45.9 (14.7) years with most having had 2 or more doses of the coronavirus vaccine (86%). Mean (SD) VCBS score was 18.5 (12.4) indicating moderate vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. Risk of severe adverse effects was the most highly valued vaccine characteristic, followed by vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection. Vaccine origin and route of administration were ranked least important. Respondents scoring high on the VCBS placed less value on the effectiveness of vaccines but greater value on development time and total number of doses (p < 0.001). COVID-19 unvaccinated respondents ranked development time and total number of doses more highly than those vaccinated respondents (p < 0.001).ConclusionsRisk of severe adverse effects, vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection were rated by the New Zealand public as the top three most important vaccine characteristics. This information is important for informing public health messaging to promote vaccine uptake and inform vaccine decision-making.
| S-EPMC10863187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social animals have to coordinate joint movements to maintain group cohesion, but the latter is often compromised by diverging individual interests. A widespread behavioral mechanism to achieve coordination relies on shared or unshared consensus decision-making. If consensus costs are high, group fission represents an alternative tactic. Exploring determinants and outcomes of spontaneous group decisions and coordination of free-ranging animals is methodologically challenging. We therefore conducted a foraging experiment with a group of wild redfronted lemurs (Eulemur rufifrons) to study decision outcomes, coordination of movements, individual foraging benefits and social interactions in response to the presentation of drinking platforms with varying baiting patterns. Behavioral observations were complemented with data from recordings of motion detector cameras installed at the platforms. The animal's behavior in the experimental conditions was compared to natural group movements. We could not determine the type of consensus decision-making because the group visited platforms randomly. The group fissioned during 23.3% of platform visits, and fissioning resulted in more individuals drinking simultaneously. As under natural conditions, adult females initiated most group movements, but overtaking by individuals of different age and sex classes occurred in 67% of movements to platforms, compared to only 18% during other movements. As a result, individual resource intake at the platforms did not depend on departure position, age or sex, but on arrival order. Aggression at the platforms did not affect resource intake, presumably due to low supplanting rates. Our findings highlight the diversity of coordination processes and related consequences for individual foraging benefits in a primate group living under natural conditions.
| S-EPMC3542333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has widely been accepted that aggregating group-level decisions is superior to individual decisions. As compared to individuals, groups tend to show a decision advantage in their response accuracy. However, there has been a lack of research exploring whether group decisions are more efficient than individual decisions with a faster information-processing speed. To investigate the relationship between accuracy and response time (RT) in group decision-making, we applied systems' factorial technology, developed by Townsend and Nozawa (Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 321-359, 1995) and regarded as a theory-driven methodology, to study the information-processing properties. More specifically, we measured the workload capacity CAND(t), which only considers the correct responses, and the assessment function of capacity AAND(t), which considers the speed-accuracy trade-off, to make a strong inference about the system-level processing efficiency. A two-interval, forced-choice oddball detection task, where participants had to detect which interval contains an odd target, was conducted in Experiment 1. Then, in Experiment 2, a yes/no Gabor detection task was adopted, where participants had to detect the presence of a Gabor patch. Our results replicated previous findings using the accuracy-based measure: Group detection sensitivity was better than the detection sensitivity of the best individual, especially when the two individuals had similar detection sensitivities. On the other hand, both workload capacity measures, CAND(t) and AAND(t), showed evidence of supercapacity processing, thus suggesting a collective benefit. The ordered relationship between accuracy-based and RT-based collective benefit was limited to the AAND(t) of the correct and fast responses, which may help uncover the processing mechanism behind collective benefits. Our results suggested that AAND(t), which combines both accuracy and RT into inferences, can be regarded as a novel and diagnostic tool for studying the group decision-making process.
| S-EPMC7498531 | biostudies-literature