Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs.

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.

How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.

Experiments comparing intuitive and reflective decisions provide insights into the cognitive foundations of human behavior. However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the frequently used experimental techniques for activating intuition and reflection remain unknown. In a large-scale preregistered online experiment (N = 3667), we compared the effects of eight reflection, six intuition, and two within-subjects manipulations on actual and self-reported measures of cognitive performance. Compared to the overall control, the long debiasing training was the most effective technique for increasing actual reflection scores, and the emotion induction was the most effective technique for increasing actual intuition scores. In contrast, the reason and the intuition recall, the reason induction, and the brief time delay conditions failed to achieve the intended effects. We recommend using the debiasing training, the decision justification, or the monetary incentives technique to activate reflection, and the emotion induction, the cognitive load, or the time pressure technique to activate intuition.

Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia.

The classical account of reasoning posits that analytic thinking weakens belief in COVID-19 misinformation. We tested this account in a demographically representative sample of 742 Australians. Participants completed a performance-based measure of analytic thinking (the Cognitive Reflection Test) and were randomized to groups in which they either rated the perceived accuracy of claims about COVID-19 or indicated whether they would be willing to share these claims. Half of these claims were previously debunked misinformation, and half were statements endorsed by public health agencies. We found that participants with higher analytic thinking levels were less likely to rate COVID-19 misinformation as accurate and were less likely to be willing to share COVID-19 misinformation. These results support the classical account of reasoning for the topic of COVID-19 misinformation and extend it to the Australian context.

Limits of the social-benefit motive among high-risk patients: a field experiment on influenza vaccination behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine uptake remains low worldwide, inflicting substantial costs to public health. Messages promoting social welfare have been shown to increase vaccination intentions, and it has been recommended that health professionals communicate the socially beneficial aspects of vaccination. We provide the first test whether this prosocial vaccination hypothesis applies to actual vaccination behaviour of high-risk patients. METHODS: In a field experiment at a tertiary care public hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, we compare the effects of two motivational messages for promoting vaccination. Using a between-subjects single-blind experimental design patients were randomly assigned to frames emphasizing the vaccine's benefits to self (n = 125) or social benefits (n = 119). Free influenza vaccination was offered to each patient. RESULTS: Among 222 patients who were not vaccinated for the season prior to the study (72% medically assessed to be at high risk), 42% in the self-benefit frame chose to receive a vaccination compared with 34% in the social-benefits frame, but the difference was not statistically significant (aOR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.95, p = 0.108). Reasons for vaccination focused primarily on self-benefit (67%) rather than social-benefit (5%). Exploratory analysis showed that the effect of messages depended on patient perception of risk group membership (aORHigh / aORLow = 5.59, 95% CI 1.30 to 24.05, p = 0.021). In particular, emphasis on self-benefit was more influential among patients who perceived themselves to be in the risk group (aOR = 6.22, 95% CI 1.69 to 22.88, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the literature observing intentions of low-risk populations, we found no evidence that social-benefit motivates actual vaccination behaviour among a high-risk patient population. Instead, those who self-categorize as being in the high risk group are more motivated by the self-benefit message. Our results suggest that a stratified approach can improve coverage: even if an emphasis on social-benefit could be effective among low-risk groups, an emphasis on self-benefit holds more promise for increasing vaccination in medical organizational settings where high-risk groups are prevalent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04230343 Retrospectively registered on the 13th January 2020.

Effective health communication depends on the interaction of message source and content: two experiments on adherence to COVID-19 measures in Türkiye.

OBJECTIVE: Following the COVID-19 outbreak, authorities recommended preventive measures to reduce infection rates. However, adherence to calls varied between individuals and across cultures. To determine the characteristics of effective health communication, we investigated three key features: message source, content, and audience. METHODS: Using a pre-test and two experiments, we tested how message content (emphasizing personal or social benefit), audience (individual differences), message source (scientists or state officials), and their interaction influence adherence to preventive measures. Using fliers advocating preventive measures, Experiment 1 investigated the effects of message content and examined the moderator role of individual differences. Experiment 2 presented the messages using news articles and manipulated sources. RESULTS: Study 1 found decreasing adherence over time, with no significant impact from message content or individual differences. Study 2 found messages emphasizing 'protect yourself' and 'protect your country' to increase intentions for adherence to preventive measures. It also revealed an interaction between message source and content whereby messages emphasizing personal benefit were more effective when they came from healthcare professionals than from state officials. However, message source and content did not affect vaccination intentions or donations for vaccine research. CONCLUSION: Effective health communication requires simultaneous consideration of message source and content.

Religion, parochialism and intuitive cooperation.

Religions promote cooperation, but they can also be divisive. Is religious cooperation intuitively parochial against atheists? Evidence supporting the social heuristics hypothesis (SHH) suggests that cooperation is intuitive, independent of religious group identity. We tested this prediction in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma game, where 1,280 practising Christian believers were paired with either a coreligionist or an atheist and where time limits were used to increase reliance on either intuitive or deliberated decisions. We explored another dual-process account of cooperation, the self-control account (SCA), which suggests that visceral reactions tend to be selfish and that cooperation requires deliberation. We found evidence for religious parochialism but no support for SHH's prediction of intuitive cooperation. Consistent with SCA but requiring confirmation in future studies, exploratory analyses showed that religious parochialism involves decision conflict and concern for strong reciprocity and that deliberation promotes cooperation independent of religious group identity. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 28 January 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12086781.v1 .

Contextualised strong reciprocity explains selfless cooperation despite selfish intuitions and weak social heuristics.

Humans frequently cooperate for collective benefit, even in one-shot social dilemmas. This provides a challenge for theories of cooperation. Two views focus on intuitions but offer conflicting explanations. The Social Heuristics Hypothesis argues that people with selfish preferences rely on cooperative intuitions and predicts that deliberation reduces cooperation. The Self-Control Account emphasizes control over selfish intuitions and is consistent with strong reciprocity-a preference for conditional cooperation in one-shot dilemmas. Here, we reconcile these explanations with each other as well as with strong reciprocity. We study one-shot cooperation across two main dilemma contexts, provision and maintenance, and show that cooperation is higher in provision than maintenance. Using time-limit manipulations, we experimentally study the cognitive processes underlying this robust result. Supporting the Self-Control Account, people are intuitively selfish in maintenance, with deliberation increasing cooperation. In contrast, consistent with the Social Heuristics Hypothesis, deliberation tends to increase the likelihood of free-riding in provision. Contextual differences between maintenance and provision are observed across additional measures: reaction time patterns of cooperation; social dilemma understanding; perceptions of social appropriateness; beliefs about others' cooperation; and cooperation preferences. Despite these dilemma-specific asymmetries, we show that preferences, coupled with beliefs, successfully predict the high levels of cooperation in both maintenance and provision dilemmas. While the effects of intuitions are context-dependent and small, the widespread preference for strong reciprocity is the primary driver of one-shot cooperation. We advance the Contextualised Strong Reciprocity account as a unifying framework and consider its implications for research and policy.

Is intuition really cooperative? Improved tests support the social heuristics hypothesis.

Understanding human cooperation is a major scientific challenge. While cooperation is typically explained with reference to individual preferences, a recent cognitive process view hypothesized that cooperation is regulated by socially acquired heuristics. Evidence for the social heuristics hypothesis rests on experiments showing that time-pressure promotes cooperation, a result that can be interpreted as demonstrating that intuition promotes cooperation. This interpretation, however, is highly contested because of two potential confounds. First, in pivotal studies compliance with time-limits is low and, crucially, evidence shows intuitive cooperation only when noncompliant participants are excluded. The inconsistency of test results has led to the currently unresolved controversy regarding whether or not noncompliant subjects should be included in the analysis. Second, many studies show high levels of social dilemma misunderstanding, leading to speculation that asymmetries in understanding might explain patterns that are otherwise interpreted as intuitive cooperation. We present evidence from an experiment that employs an improved time-pressure protocol with new features designed to induce high levels of compliance and clear tests of understanding. Our study resolves the noncompliance issue, shows that misunderstanding does not confound tests of intuitive cooperation, and provides the first independent experimental evidence for intuitive cooperation in a social dilemma using time-pressure.