Better together? Social distance affects joint probability discounting
-
Published:2022-03-10
Issue:7
Volume:50
Page:1513-1529
-
ISSN:0090-502X
-
Container-title:Memory & Cognition
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Mem Cogn
Author:
Schwenke DianaORCID, Senftleben UlrikeORCID, Scherbaum StefanORCID
Abstract
AbstractDeciding together is common in our everyday life. However, the process of this joint decision-making plays out across different levels, for example language, intonation, or non-verbal behaviour. Here we focused on non-verbal interaction dynamics between two participants in probability discounting. We applied a gamified decision-making task in which participants performed a series of choices between a small but safe and a large but risky reward. In two experiments, we found that joint decision-making resulted in lower discounting and higher efficiency. In order to understand the underlying mechanisms in greater detail, we studied through which process this variation occurred and whether this process would be modulated by the social distance between both participants. Our findings suggested that socially close participants managed to reduce their discounting by interactive processes while socially distant participants were influenced by the social context itself. However, a higher level of efficiency was achieved through interactive processes for both groups. In summary, this study served as a fine-grained investigation of collaborative interaction processes and its significant impact on the outcome of choices with probabilistic consequences.
Funder
Technische Universität Dresden
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference71 articles.
1. Abney, D. H., Dale, R., Yoshimi, J., Kello, C. T., Tylén, K., & Fusaroli, R. (2014). Joint perceptual decision-making: A case study in explanatory pluralism. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00330 2. Albrecht, K., Volz, K. G., Sutter, M., Laibson, D. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2011). What is for me is not for you: Brain correlates of intertemporal choice for self and other. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(2), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq046 3. Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J.-R., & Wengström, E. (2014). Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. Management Science, 2018, 141223041315002. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2085 4. Bahrami, B., Olsen, K. K., Latham, P. E., Roapstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329, 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9g182 5. Batteux, E., Ferguson, E., & Tunney, R. J. (2017). Risk Preferences in Surrogate Financial Decision-making. Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000371
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|