More Like this

1. Socio-Affective Traits Mediating Charitable Giving

   Arroyo, L; Liljeholm, M (July 2023, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society)

   This study explored the influence of various socio-affective factors on charitable giving, using an online task in which participants could choose to exert time and effort that was translated into monetary donations. Participants had the option of making Public Donations, Anonymous Donations, or No Donations. Moreover, some participants were given Social Information (SI) regarding the percentage of Public vs. Anonymous donations obtained in a pilot study. We found that the proportion of Public Donations increased with greater scores on the Narcissistic Entitlement & Exploitativeness scale (NPI EE), but only in the SI group. Conversely, the proportion of Anonymous Donations decreased with greater NPI EE scores, in the No Social Information group (NSI). In the absence of Social Information, Simulated Compassion scores (SCS), indicative of social approval seeking, decreased the proportion of No Donation decisions as well as the average amount donated. Finally, Social Information modulated the proportion of Public donations. 

   more » « less
2. Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000375  

   Grillos, Tara (October 2022, British Journal of Political Science)

   Abstract Citizen participation in decision making has been widely lauded as a method for improving societal outcomes. Deliberative discussion, in particular, is believed to be more transformative than a mere aggregation of individual preferences, leading to more socially optimal decision making and behavior. I report the results from a laboratory experiment with 570 subjects in Nairobi, directly testing the effect of participation in deliberative group decision making on collective outcomes. Participants engage in a group task to earn compensation toward a shared group fund. Randomly assigned treatments vary according to whether decision making over the task to be completed involves: (1) external assignment; (2) non-deliberative majority voting; or (3) consensus through deliberative discussion. I find that deliberation improves collective decision making. Deliberation is also associated with changes in preferences, greater agreement with decision outcomes, and greater perceived fairness. Evidence for behavior change is weaker, but there is some support for further research into the relationship between preference change and behavior change. 

   more » « less
3. Safety Blanket of Humanity: Thinking of Unfamiliar Humans or Robots Increases Conformity to Humans

   https://doi.org/3371382.3378381  

   Fraune, M. R. (March 2020, Human-Robot Interaction)

   As robots become prevalent, merely thinking of their existence may affect how people behave. When interacting with a robot, people conformed to the robot’s answers more than to their own initial response [1]. In this study, we examined how robot affect conformity to other humans. We primed participants to think of different experiences: Humans (an experience with a human stranger), Robots (an experience with a robot), or Neutral (daily life). We then measured if participants conformed to other humans in survey answers. Results indicated that people conformed more when thinking of Humans or Robots than of Neutral events. This implies that robots have a similar effect on human conformity to other humans as human strangers do. 

   more » « less
4. Neural representations of others’ traits predict social decisions

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116944119  

   Kobayashi, Kenji; Kable, Joseph W.; Hsu, Ming; Jenkins, Adrianna C. (May 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   To guide social interaction, people often rely on expectations about the traits of other people, based on markers of social group membership (i.e., stereotypes). Although the influence of stereotypes on social behavior is widespread, key questions remain about how traits inferred from social-group membership are instantiated in the brain and incorporated into neural computations that guide social behavior. Here, we show that the human lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) represents the content of stereotypes about members of different social groups in the service of social decision-making. During functional MRI scanning, participants decided how to distribute resources across themselves and members of a variety of social groups in a modified Dictator Game. Behaviorally, we replicated our recent finding that inferences about others' traits, captured by a two-dimensional framework of stereotype content (warmth and competence), had dissociable effects on participants' monetary-allocation choices: recipients' warmth increased participants’ aversion to advantageous inequity (i.e., earning more than recipients), and recipients’ competence increased participants’ aversion to disadvantageous inequity (i.e., earning less than recipients). Neurally, representational similarity analysis revealed that others' traits in the two-dimensional space were represented in the temporoparietal junction and superior temporal sulcus, two regions associated with mentalizing, and in the lateral OFC, known to represent inferred features of a decision context outside the social domain. Critically, only the latter predicted individual choices, suggesting that the effect of stereotypes on behavior is mediated by inference-based decision-making processes in the OFC. 

   more » « less
5. Juror Scientific Reasoning Skills and Discussion of Scientific Evidence During Deliberation

   McCowan, K. (March 2020, Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract We investigate the link between individual differences in science reasoning skills and mock jurors’ deliberation behavior; specifically, how much they talk about the scientific evidence presented in a complicated, ecologically valid case during deliberation. Consistent with our preregistered hypothesis, mock jurors strong in scientific reasoning discussed the scientific evidence more during deliberation than those with weaker science reasoning skills. Summary With increasing frequency, legal disputes involve complex scientific information (Faigman et al., 2014; Federal Judicial Center, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). Yet people often have trouble consuming scientific information effectively (McAuliff et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2014; Resnick et al., 2016). Individual differences in reasoning styles and skills can affect how people comprehend complex evidence (e.g., Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, Alberston, 2011; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008). Recently, scholars have highlighted the importance of studying group deliberation contexts as well as individual decision contexts (Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Kovera, 2017). If individual differences influence how jurors understand scientific evidence, it invites questions about how these individual differences may affect the way jurors discuss science during group deliberations. The purpose of the current study was to examine how individual differences in the way people process scientific information affects the extent to which jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberations. Methods We preregistered the data collection plan, sample size, and hypotheses on the Open Science Framework. Jury-eligible community participants (303 jurors across 50 juries) from Phoenix, AZ (Mage=37.4, SD=16.9; 58.8% female; 51.5% White, 23.7% Latinx, 9.9% African-American, 4.3% Asian) were paid $55 for a 3-hour mock jury study. Participants completed a set of individual questionnaires related to science reasoning skills and attitudes toward science prior to watching a 45-minute mock armed-robbery trial. The trial included various pieces of evidence and testimony, including forensic experts testifying about mitochondrial DNA evidence (mtDNA; based on Hans et al. 2011 materials). Participants were then given 45 minutes to deliberate. The deliberations were video recorded and transcribed to text for analysis. We analyzed the deliberation content for discussions related to the scientific evidence presented during trial. We hypothesized that those with stronger scientific and numeric reasoning skills, higher need for cognition, and more positive views towards science would discuss scientific evidence more than their counterparts during deliberation. Measures We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by the National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. Coding We identified verbal utterances related to the scientific evidence presented in court. For instance, references to DNA evidence in general (e.g. nuclear DNA being more conclusive than mtDNA), the database that was used to compare the DNA sample (e.g. the database size, how representative it was), exclusion rates (e.g. how many other people could not be excluded as a possible match), and the forensic DNA experts (e.g. how credible they were perceived). We used word count to operationalize the extent to which each juror discussed scientific information. First we calculated the total word count for each complete jury deliberation transcript. Based on the above coding scheme we determined the number of words each juror spent discussing scientific information. To compare across juries, we wanted to account for the differing length of deliberation; thus, we calculated each juror’s scientific deliberation word count as a proportion of their jury’s total word count. Results On average, jurors discussed the science for about 4% of their total deliberation (SD=4%, range 0-22%). We regressed proportion of the deliberation jurors spend discussing scientific information on the four individual difference measures (i.e., SRS, NFC, WNS, ATS). Using the adjusted R-squared, the measures significantly accounted for 5.5% of the variability in scientific information deliberation discussion, SE=0.04, F(4, 199)=3.93, p=0.004. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the Scientific Reasoning Scale was the only measure that remained significant, b=0.003, SE=0.001, t(203)=2.02, p=0.045. To analyze how much variability each measure accounted for, we performed a stepwise regression, with NFC entered at step 1, ATS entered at step 2, WNS entered at step 3, and SRS entered at step 4. At step 1, NFC accounted for 2.4% of the variability, F(1, 202)=5.95, p=0.02. At step 2, ATS did not significantly account for any additional variability. At step 3, WNS accounted for an additional 2.4% of variability, ΔF(1, 200)=5.02, p=0.03. Finally, at step 4, SRS significantly accounted for an additional 1.9% of variability in scientific information discussion, ΔF(1, 199)=4.06, p=0.045, total adjusted R-squared of 0.055. Discussion This study provides additional support for previous findings that scientific reasoning skills affect the way jurors comprehend and use scientific evidence. It expands on previous findings by suggesting that these individual differences also impact the way scientific evidence is discussed during juror deliberations. In addition, this study advances the literature by identifying Scientific Reasoning Skills as a potentially more robust explanatory individual differences variable than more well-studied constructs like Need for Cognition in jury research. Our next steps for this research, which we plan to present at AP-LS as part of this presentation, incudes further analysis of the deliberation content (e.g., not just the mention of, but the accuracy of the references to scientific evidence in discussion). We are currently coding this data with a software program called Noldus Observer XT, which will allow us to present more sophisticated results from this data during the presentation. Learning Objective: Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills affect how much jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberation. 

   more » « less