dominance of competence in member selection under dilemma situation

Dominance of Competence in Member Selection under Dilemma Situation

Lestin, Y. H. Lee, Winton, W. T. Au, & Fion, W. K. Law

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Aug 2009 13th ICSD @ Kyoto

Two universal factors• Two universal factors

1. Warmth, honest, etc, termed as morality aspect

2. Clever, skillful, etc, termed as competence aspect

• Similar with might vs morality distinction• Assumption

– The two aspects summarize the types of information in social dilemma

Morality vs CompetenceWhich factor is more influential?From impression formation research

Morality importance hypothesis (Bruin & Van Lange, 2000)

Morality > Competence

Morality vs Competence• Goal dependent (Wojciszke, 1998)

– Morality related goal or impression formation• Morality more influential

– Competence related goal • Competence more influential

• Is social dilemma a morality-related or competence-related context?

Aim of the current researchTo compare the importance of morality and

competence information in member selection under social dilemma context

• 303 participants

• 14-26 players

• 10 course scenario games

• Project vs Examination

• Time as resource

6 9

Group Project(Cooperation)

Individual Examination (Defection)

12

Method – experimental setup

• 2 Tasks– Form group– Allocate

timeAnonymity2

informationResourceCooperation

Rate

Number of hours available (Resource represent competence) 6912

Average allocation ratio (Cooperation Rate represent morality)

0 – 100%

HH: 9 hrs.

H: (38%)

H: 9 hrs.

(38%)No info Resources info Cooperation info Both info

120 seconds to select members

DV - popularity

Popularity = 50% Popularity = 100%

Key findingsPrediction of popularity when both information displayed

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Cooperation Rate

Resource

Standardize value of the corresponding variables (zCR/zRes)

Popu

lari

ty Slope=0.05

Slope=0.10

IQ: 200 IQ: 100

IQ: 200 IQ: 100 Criminal history No

criminal history

IQ: 200 IQ: 100 Gender: Male Gender:

Female

Effect of Cooperation Rate in CR only and Both condition

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Cooperation Rate Only

Both Condition

Standardized Cooperation Rate

Popu

lari

ty

Slope=0.09

Slope=0.05

Effect of Resource in Res Only and Both Condition

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Resource Only

Both Condition

Standardized Resource

Pop

ula

rity

Slope=0.097

Slope=0.09

Potential concerns

Concern 1Resource x Cooperation Rate = expected

resource allocationSingle combinatory effect or 2 separate effect?

Regression show that the interaction term of resource x cooperation rate was n.s. t(2556) = -.12, p = .91

Concern 2Resource and Cooperate rate measured in

different scaleResource: discrete, 6, 9 12Cooperation Rate: continuous, 0-100%

Cooperation Rate not manipulatedAlternative explanation

Concern 2A follow-up to eliminate this alternativeSame scenarioOnly member selectionThe target to be selected are artificial targetsResource and Cooperation Rate

Measure in same scale (0-100)Counterbalanced and manipulated

Concern 2Counterbalance by Mirrored target

Resource = 30 hr, Cooperation Rate = 60%Resource = 60 hr, Cooperation Rate = 30%

Mirrored targets with more resource was selected more frequently than targets with higher cooperation rate

Preferred target # of participants

Higher Resource 37

Higher Cooperation Rate 13

No Preference 4

Concern 3Maybe our scenario is special!

We collected impression rating using the second paradigm (artificial targets)

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

CR Res

Target Type

Sta

ndar

dize

d sc

ore

Behavoiral Choice

Impression Rating

Pop

ula

rity

ConclusionCompetence

More influential in member selectionLess affected by the existence of Morality

informationThe effect is

Not due to the combinatory nature of cooperation rate and resource

Not because we used different scaleNot because our scenario is special

ConclusionCompetence affect people’s decision stronger

than morality information in selecting member under social dilemma situation