Coordinated decision-making boosts altruistic motivation—But not trust

Abstract

In the current study, we separately tested whether coordinated decision-making increases altruism and whether it increases trust. To this end, we implemented a paradigm in which participants repeatedly perform a coordinated decision-making task either with the same partner on every trial, or with a different partner on each trial. When both players coordinate on the same option, both are rewarded. In Experiment 1 (N = 52), participants were sometimes presented with tempting opportunities to defect. In Experiment 2 (N = 97), participants sometimes had to decide whether or not to trust that their partners had resisted such tempting opportunities. The results show that repeatedly coordinating with the same partner increased participants’ resistance to temptation (Experiment 1) but did not increase trust (Experiment 2). These findings support the hypothesis that coordinating with a partner increases altruistic motivation towards that partner; they do not support the hypothesis that coordinating boosts trust.

Committed (dis)honesty: A systematic meta-analytic review of the divergent effects of social commitment to individuals or honesty oaths on dishonest behavior.

“…Knowing about the partner’s higher investment of effort increased participants’ commitment to the partner, which was manifested in greater persistence in a follow-up group task (Székely & Michael, 2018; Figure 1B). In a further study (Michael et al, 2021), repeated interaction led people to identify each other as ingroup members, thereby generating a sense of commitment to act in others’ interests—although this was not the case if participants believed that their partner had expressed a preference for a different partner (see also Chennells et al, 2022; Figure 1B). In a different set of studies, allocating participants to a minimal group, communicating about a group name, or coordinating in a die-roll game increased participants’ commitment toward a fellow group member (Zickfeld et al, 2023).…”

“…Such common goals are best described by the so-called joint commitment, as reviewed earlier, in which both agents are committed to each other based on the same action (Figure 1A). Indeed, commitment has been found to increase prosocial behavior (Chennells et al, 2022; Kokal et al, 2011; McEllin & Michael, 2022). For example, Kirschner and Tomasello (2010) found that joint music-making induced social commitment and prosocial behavior in 4-year-olds.…”

“…Research suggests that dishonesty increases when others benefit from the dishonest act, which has been explained by prosocial concerns (Leib et al, 2021). Since social commitment can increase prosocial behavior (Chennells et al, 2022), we would expect higher dishonesty when feeling committed to other individuals or groups if other agents can benefit from the dishonest act.…”

“…Studies provide strong evidence that familiarity strengthens social commitments (Chennells et al, 2022; Ho & Weigelt, 2005). Similarly, there is evidence that people are more dishonest if a friend or familiar other can profit from their actions compared to a stranger (Akbari et al, 2020; Morse, 2016; Potipiti & Kingsuwankul, 2020; Wiltermuth, 2011).…”

Decision-Making Conflict Measurement of Old Neighborhoods Renovation Based on Mixed Integer Programming DEA-Discriminant Analysis (MIP DEA–DA) Models

“…An important factor in the renovation process is decision-making, which determines the overall direction. The renovation of old neighborhoods will require the participation of multiple decisionmaking bodies, and there are some contradictions between public and personal interests, information sharing, and information monopoly among different interest groups [5]. In addition, due to different interests, backgrounds, and knowledge reserved between the subjects, there will be differences in preferences between them in decision-making [6],…”