att_1: What happens if someone keeps all 10 dollars
in their private pot (contributing nothing to the collective pot)?
Correct answer: They’ll get at least 10 dollars, plus more if others
contribute to the collective pot
att_2: What happens if someone contributes all 10
dollars to the collective pot (keeping nothing in their private pot)?
Correct answer: All four peoples’ contributions to the collective pot
will be added together and doubled … and then be divided equally back to
all four people
att_3: Please select Somewhat Disagree
| att_1 | att_2 | att_3 | N |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 103 |
| cond | N |
|---|---|
| NONPT | 50 |
| PT | 53 |
| race | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| asian | 4 | 3.88 |
| black | 11 | 10.68 |
| hispanic | 4 | 3.88 |
| multiracial | 4 | 3.88 |
| white | 80 | 77.67 |
| gender | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| man | 56 | 54.37 |
| woman | 47 | 45.63 |
| edu | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| GED | 33 | 32.04 |
| 2yearColl | 13 | 12.62 |
| 4yearColl | 40 | 38.83 |
| MA | 13 | 12.62 |
| PHD | 3 | 2.91 |
| NA | 1 | 0.97 |
| cond | contribution_m | contribution_sd |
|---|---|---|
| NONPT | 5.76 | 3.70 |
| PT | 4.92 | 3.93 |
t(101.00) = 1.11, p = .269, d = 0.22
Cool. We’re not replicating their effect, but it is in the direction we’d expect. Just a little more power and we’ll be able to find it. Let’s see if CWV is playing a role here.
| Estimate | Std. Error | t value | Pr(>|t|) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 8.75 | 1.47 | 5.95 | 0.00 |
| condPT | -0.33 | 2.02 | -0.16 | 0.87 |
| CWV | -1.08 | 0.50 | -2.17 | 0.03 |
| condPT:CWV | -0.16 | 0.68 | -0.24 | 0.81 |
| cond | CWV_split | contribution_m | contribution_sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| NONPT | HIGH | 4.71 | 4.21 |
| NONPT | LOW | 6.30 | 3.34 |
| PT | HIGH | 3.67 | 3.24 |
| PT | LOW | 5.97 | 4.19 |
| Effect | DFn | DFd | F | p | p<.05 | ges |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cond | 1 | 99 | 0.83 | 0.36 | 0.01 | |
| CWV_split | 1 | 99 | 6.62 | 0.01 |
|
0.06 |
| cond:CWV_split | 1 | 99 | 0.22 | 0.64 | 0.00 |
| cond | CWV_SDsplit | contribution_m | contribution_sd |
|---|---|---|---|
| NONPT | HIGH | 3.67 | 3.83 |
| NONPT | LOW | 7.70 | 2.50 |
| NONPT | MIDDLE | 5.56 | 3.79 |
| PT | HIGH | 2.92 | 3.26 |
| PT | LOW | 5.80 | 5.03 |
| PT | MIDDLE | 5.42 | 3.62 |
| Effect | DFn | DFd | F | p | p<.05 | ges |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cond | 1 | 97 | 1.10 | 0.30 | 0.01 | |
| CWV_SDsplit | 2 | 97 | 3.91 | 0.02 |
|
0.07 |
| cond:CWV_SDsplit | 2 | 97 | 0.43 | 0.65 | 0.01 |
hmm, ok, we’re definitely seeing a main effect of CWV, which is
great. But we’re not seeing an interaction so much. The median split
version is probably closest, but when we cut it to three, it doesn’t
look like the effect is stronger for those in the PT condition.
ok ok, all good. chin-up, baltiansky. let’s look at some of our more
exploratory variables.
We asked them to estimate how much they thought others in their group contributed.
| cond | estimate_m | estimate_sd |
|---|---|---|
| NONPT | 5.26 | 2.70 |
| PT | 5.04 | 2.71 |
t(100.69) = 0.42, p = .678, d = 0.08
Let’s check the relationship between that in their own contributions.
yeah, highly correlated.
| CWV | allocate_them | |
|---|---|---|
| CWV | 1.00 | -0.23 |
| allocate_them | -0.23 | 1.00 |
| CWV | allocate_them | |
|---|---|---|
| CWV | 1.0 | -0.1 |
| allocate_them | -0.1 | 1.0 |
Participants were asked how they would feel about someone else in
their group who contributed nothing to the shared account?
freeriding_1: I’d think they were pretty
smart
freeriding_2: I’d be frustrated with
them
freeriding_3: I’d be frustrated with myself for how
I played
freeriding_4: I’d want to play another kind of game
with them if it gave me a chance to get even with them
freeriding_1: t(97.60) = -0.89, p
= .375, d = -0.18
freeriding_2: t(100.66) = -0.05, p =
.958, d = -0.01
freeriding_3: t(100.85) = -1.75, p =
.083, d = -0.34
freeriding_4: t(99.48) = -0.16, p =
.871, d = -0.03
let’s see how these items correlate with CWV.
hmm, freeriding_1 is interesting. High CWV thing freeriders are being smart. If they take freeriders’ perspective, they are frustrated with them, and if they don’t take their perspective, they’re less frustrated them. This tells me that maybe they’re less surprised (we can look at this in the ‘surprise’ item). freeriding_3 is pretty cool too. For perspective takers, CWV and the extent to which they’re frustrated with themselves for how they played is positively correlated. Not the same for non-perspective takers.
Very interesting.
We asked them how much they’d be willing to give to punish people who didn’t contribute anything. Ranging from 0 to 2.5, this is the distribution:
That’s good, I guess. Most people will just keep their pot.
After we told them how much their group members contributed, we asked them how surprised they are and if it’s good surprise or bad surprise.
First, let’s check out the distribution of the shared pot (after doubling):
alrighty, let’s see if CWV interacts with the result to predict surprise
hmm, not really. Generally, people were surprised, but it doesn’t look like that’d driven by CWV.
How about valence?
Hmm, is this interesting? Looke like there’s no effect for perspetive-takers, but there’s a positive effect for non-perspetive takers.
If we want to take a look at what people wrote, we have this here.
| responses |
|---|
| I think they are thinking about how much they should trust the other participants. I think they are weighing how trustworthy others are and if they should contribute any money into the pot or keep the 10 dollars. |
| They are thinking how much should I put in the pot. They’re also thinking how much will others contribute to the pot. So, we are all basically thinking the same thing. |
| Hi I’m austin hope we all have fun and are honest. Hope we all do well in this and make the most possible for all of us. Have a good day and lets have fun |
| Well, I’m fairly confident the other three people aren’t actually real. Therefore, nothing is going on in their minds because they don’t exist. If they were real, though, they would probably be thinking about how much they trust the other participants and how much they value their own earnings in the experiment. |
| they are thinking what is the best choice and what will ensure that they will make the most money, they are thinking about what the other people are going to do and making their decisions. They are trying to contemplate on what choice would maximize their earnings. |
| They are probably each wondering what the other members will do. Will they contribute to make more of they will be greedy and keep it? Since its a game, they’ll take the chance and contribute |
| They might be thinking about how to best maximize their earnings. They likely are willing to contribute to the pot if others do but since they aren’t sure will want to keep a healthy amount for themselves. |
| They might be thinking about how to divide the amount of money. They might trust everyone to put all the money in for an equal payout. They could also be greedy and try to think of a way to get the most money they can. |
| I think they are thinking about how to best earn the most in their mind, they want to earn more than others and they will contribute nothing to the pot and hope others would put in instead. |
| I don’t know and I don’t care. In the space below, please write at least two sentences (minimum 150 characters) about what you think is going on in their minds as they consider their choice of what to contribute, or hold back, in this game. We realize you don’t have much go on, but use your best judgment. |
| I’m hoping that they’re thinking to contribute at least half of their money to the pot. Then they’ll get to keep some and won’t feel bad that they didn’t donate any. |
| I think most people are thinking about how trustworthy the others are. I think most people are new to this platform, so would be inherently non-trusting and probably won’t contribute much. |
| They are thinking in a logical way, just as if they were AI and not human players. They are waiting for further instructions from the research study. |
| They might be thinking about what the maximum payment could be if they decided to contribute. They would also be weighing the potential downsides if they were to decide to contribute, but then no one else did. |
| I think they are trying to decide how much to give and wondering how much I will give. I think they are trying to decide if they should share a lot and hope everyone else does the same so they can get a big reward for everyone, or if they should be more selfish and take everyone else’s money. |
| They are probably hoping that we are all going to put a lot in the collective pot. They might be very trusting of their teammates, and willing to take a chance. |
| I would think that all of of are wanting to increase our own chances of winning. we all need the money but I would think that everyone would see that contributing more the collective pot, would insure that we all get a fair share of the money. |
| I will take a positive outlook on what the other 3 players are thinking. I hope they are thinking that it is beneficial to all of us to equally contribute everything to the collective pot. Then all of us can get a “bonus” that is maximized, without taking from any others. It’s more equal, and positive, for all involved. |
| They are probably trying to think about how everyone is going to play the game. Do they put in all their money and hope for a 20 dollar bonus if everyone gets goes all in? Or do they play it safe and keep some or all of it back. |
| They are wondering if the other players are real. They are wondering if there really is a bonus in this task. They are wondering if others will contribute and how much. |
| Probably they are thinking like I am, how much are these people willing to share their money. They don’t want to get stuck with nothing, but they also don’t want to appear selfish. |
| The entire group is interested in maximizing the money they receive. Therefore, it seems likely that everyone will contribute the maximum to the collective pot. |
| If I were one of the other three participants, I would seriously be thinking about what amount I’m comfortable gambling with. I would be thinking about how I can minimize my possible losses while maximize my gains. |
| I think they are all wondering if the other players are willing to contribute everything to the group pot for the highest possible payout or not. It’s a bit risky but I think they are all willing to try it. |
| They are wondering how much they dare risk. If everyone donates most or all of their money, we will all benefit. However, they stand to lose if the others are selfish and hold their money back. |
| I think they will have difficulty trusting that the other group members will contribute much or anything to the pot. So, I imagine that they will probably contribute the bare minimum, no more than $5. |
| I think they are probably wondering what is the best way to get more money back in the end. If they even want to contribute to the collective pot or not and trying to figure out what the other participants are going to do. Also how bad would it be to be greedy and keep it all to themselves. |
| They are probably thinking about what the other 3 people in the group will contribute it anything. They are probably thinking about should they keep it all or contribute some to the pot. |
| Whether they should contribute or not, because if no one else contributes, then they only get $5, as opposed to the $10 they started with. But they could also double their money if everyone contributes all of their money. |
| I imagine they are weighing whether or not it is worth it to trust a group of strangers. They are trying to figure out how how much they will receive if everyone donates different amounts and how it affects them. |
| I think they’re probably like me and like most other people, that is, they want the highest reward but they recognize that they’ll probably have to contribute something in order to get something back. There may be one of them that is going to use this information about human nature to hold back all of their cash. I figure most will contribute something just to be able to earn something and one or or more will take advantage of that. |
| I think they might want to keep it all to themselves to be on a safe side or want to contribute some of their money so everyone gets something. i really cant say but i will go with the former. |
| They are probably thinking they should keep at least some of the pot to guarantee some money and not just giving away 3/4 of theirs but also thinking if everyone contributed all we could maximize the amount we each get. But trying to think what others will do |
| I suspect they are thinking that if everyone donates all, that is of greatest benefit to the group as a whole, but if anyone decides not to, that person will be better off than everyone else. Likewise, if multiple people hold back, then those who contribute are even worse off. It’s about probability, and greed, and trying to determine who will do what with their money. |
| i’m going to assume that the other players are like minded as me. i personally would put in half of what i started with, so $5. that way i (other players) would still get a good bonus and i’d still have a bonus no matter what. if everyone contributes something, then no matter what everyone would still get a bonus |
| I think that the others would be having similar thoughts to my own right now. I think they would be wondering whether they could trust the others and just how much trust to risk. They might be trying to mentally calculate winnings under different scenarios, as I’ve been trying to do. And there might be a jerk in there who is trying to figure out how to make away with the greatest reward at the expense of everyone else. Overall, they might be feeling a bit uneasy about the uncertainty. |
| I think that the other players are considering keeping all of their money instead of contributing because the instructions subtly guided that as the best option. Consequently, this makes me feel hesitant to contribute since I believe that the others will not. |
| I think that they are thinking about how they would make the most money in the least risky way possible. I think they will try to play it safe to guarantee they make money. |
| I think the other people are wondering if they should keep most of their money, or contribute most of their money to the pot, so it is automatically doubled. They know if that everyone just contributes all of their money to the pot, then everyone gets the most back, but they’re not sure if they trust the other people to do that. |
| We all want to make as much money as possible. Contributing is the best way to do that. Giving little to the pot still brings back double what you put in. Trying to guess the outcome and if you are picked is the harder part. It’s a game and the money is sort of free to begin with. Wonderful CHANCE if your team wins and you get the pot. |
| I think people are considering being greedy and keeping the $10.00 more so than contributing some part of their pot to the group pot. I think some people are trying to think about what their fellow group members are thinking to work out a strategy that benefits them the most. |
| They are thinking what is the best gamble. They are gaurenteed 10 dollars but sacrificing some, could mean easilly walking away wiht more than 10 dollars. But if they are the only one to do so, they can walk away with as low as 5 dollars. |
| I think the other three people in my group will donate all or most of their ten dollars to the pot. I think we all want to play this game fairly together. |
| Since this is a group work, based on my guess each and every person in my group will be like contributing above 5 dollars and will be expecting return which is the doubling price and the it continues |
| I hope they realize it’s in every players best interest to contribute the entire amount to the collective pot. That way we would all receive $20 if our group was chosen. I hope they are thinking they can try to make more than $20 by keeping their $10, but there is no guarantee and it’s risky to do that. |
| I think they are thinking about what the other people in the group do for a living. I also think they are wondering how greedy people will be. Some people might feel guilty about their choice. |
| I would expect them not to contribute because most people won’t want to lose. They would probably have it in mind not to contribute as well. People can be unpredictable a times. |
| They are probably deciding if they can trust the other participants at all, and if they can, how MUCH they can trust them. Also doing a risk-benefit analysis of how much they should contribute. |
| I think they are considering how to best maximize their earnings. There is likely concern that no one will contribute to the pot and therefore they will lose money but they may also be thinking of just risking it and hoping we all contribute the full amount. |
| I hope they know that if we all put in everything, we will all get the equally a good outcome. It will be fair to everyone and everyone will be in a win-win situation. |
| I think that everyone will be considering their options - how best to game the system and obtain the greatest financial benefits. Will it be a better ‘bet’ to contribute everything to the pot and hope others do the same. Or will it be better to contribute nothing and then earn of others’ contributions. Or a combination approach? |
| If i were them I’d want to maximize payoff for myself. I’ll do anything i need to do to make sure I get the most money for myself regardless of the wellbeing of others. |
| I think that the people involved on crowd research are interested in helping others. I think we will work together to help us all come out on top. I don’t think they are selfish. |
| responses |
|---|
| should i contribute everything? if all people contributed everything that is collectively the best thing that could happen. all will receive an equal share too. but if i keep it all to myself i can make more. |
| i have no idea, they probably want to maximise their bonus. they are thinking how to get the largest bonus for themselves without giving away too much |
| They realize that in order to maximize their bonus, they should contribute nothing and hope that others provide them with free money through their contributions. They fear the risk of contributing to the middle pot and losing money because nobody else had contributed. |
| I think they thought about how they could maximize there earnings while still being helpful to the other players I think they all put in about 5 to the pot |
| They were considering whether others would contribute money to the group pot and how much. I’m sure they’re trying to maximize their bonus while not taking too much risk. |
| They were probably weighing the benefits of keeping the amount in their private pot versus including it in the collective plot. They were probably considering the effect it would have on them versus how it would impact the other players. |
| I feel like they might have been thinking like I was. Hoping that others would donate all or most so that they would get a decent payout on top of the 10 dollars they decided to keep for their private pot. |
| The general risk to reward ratio. If they decide to place all of their 10 dollars into the pot, what is the chance that they will get a net gain in return. |
| I think that they were also thinking about contributing 10 dollars to the game so that we can all have an equal amount of a bonus for each other. I also think that they wanted to be generous as well too and just be equal and accepted. |
| I think they were leery about trusting the other members of the group. They wanted to contribute, but didn’t know if anyone else was going to. They were hesitant. |
| I think most people are thinking that they probably shouldn’t be trusting random strangers to do the right thing and add to the collective pot. Why not at least guarantee yourself $10? |
| I think they were worried about the chances that nobody would contribute except them. The probably had a bit of anxiety about their own reward diminishing because of others greed. |
| They were likely thinking about how much they could potentially profit from adding to the collective pot or keeping the bonus for themselves, and the best way to maximize their outcome. |
| Each person in this group wants to maximize their payout. It is clear that contributing the maximum from their pot is the correct choice. This is clear to me. |
| They are thinking they want the highest bonus so they need to donate on the first round and maybe not the second round, and are hopeful that the other 3 members donate more than they did |
| I think they are deciding what to do and how to get the largest bonus possible. I think that they also thought about what the other players would do. |
| Assuming they think similarly to me, I imagine they realize the best thing for them would be to contribute. It is probably clear to them that the best chance to maximize profit is to contribute all their money. I imagine that they are thinking that everyone else knows this too and is thinking something similar. |
| It makes sense for everyone to contribute $10 to the collective pot, so the amount can be doubled. However, some people may want to keep their $10, as a sure thing. |
| I would imagine the other players in my group are analyzing their personal financial situations and what would benefit them, however they’re also considering the amounts being doubled and the chance of making much more. They’re debating what to do, risk versus reward. |
| They probably figure the same as me, that no one will contribute so the safest bet is to just keep what you have for yourself. Everyone typically just looks out for themselves most of the time. |
| Those who are risk adverse might consider contributing nothing. They’d be protected from any loss, and could only gain if others contribute AND this group is randomly selected for a bonus. |
| I think that my teammates are selfless people who want everyone to get a nice bonus. Therefore, they were thinking about how much money they were going to give. |
| They are thinking that in order to get the maximum payout it is best to put all of the money into the common pool. If everyone does this then we will be in the best position possible. Of course, some people are going to think that someone in the group isn’t going to do this and they might consider keeping some of the money in their private pot. |
| The other people are wondering if everybody else is going to donate their full $10 to the collective pot. It’s also going to their minds that they could keep their $10 in their private pot and receive more payout than everybody else. There wondering if they should be fair, or greedy. |
| I think most people would contribute at least one dollar, of course there’s the option to contribute absolutely nothing at all, but even then that can narrow the chances of receiving a decent sized bonus. An average person would contribute at least half of their personal pot, although I can most likely see people only wanting to contribute a single dollar in hopes that most of the other players would add in more money in total. Someone like myself would contribute about half from my personal pot, which it what I believe to be a fair amount overall. It would be pretty wise if everyone contributed their entire total amount from their personal pot to the collective pot, but the likelihood of that happening is next to zero, since most people wouldn’t trust that others would do the same despite it giving out the maximum possible bonuses overall. |
| They were likely thinking: if I put it all in and no one else does, I will get a low bonus. But if I keep some of it, I’m guaranteed to win a little more. But if we all put it all in, we all win the most.I have no way of knowing what anyone else will do, so I just have to do what I think is best for all. |
| I think they were trying to maximize their own profits while being a fair, team player and trying to benefit others as well. Most people don’t simply look out for themselves; they also try to be nice to others. |
| I cannot control the decisions of others, and while maximizing my profits by withholding my contribution is an option, I decided to be altruistic to increase the amount of profit for everyone, rather than myself. |
| I would think that the other participants are weighing the pros and cons of putting money in to the collective pot. They are trying to decide what amount would be beneficial to them that they could make the most money on the return. |
| I would imagine they were faced with the dilemma of wanting to get the most for themselves but not appearing to be selfish. They were thinking they had to balance their desire to be fair and pro social with the personal need to make as much as possible. They were calculating potential donations and the outcomes and making rationalizations about how they would feel if they received each amount. They were thinking they probably won’t win anyway, and since it’s a social experiment and they should be generous so they will give half and feel good about both issues. |
| It’s not an easy decision since we are talking about $10 and for some it’s a nice amount of money but I hope that they will decide to put as much as money they can into the pot so we can win more money in the end. |
| I think everyone initially wants to maximize the amount of money they will win, so I would expect them to consider giving the full 10 dollars to the collective pot. However, some may feel a bit of selfishness or fear that they could lose out. They may calculate their maximum payout by looking at how little they can give, and count on everyone else giving some, therefore they get more than the 10 out. Essentially, following the second scenario in the video we watched. Still, I would expect the majority of the users count on the goodness of others to maximize the benefit to all instead of strictly being selfish. |
| They’re are probably thinking the same thing I’m thinking. If I don’t give anything I’m guaranteed at least my $10 in my private pot, but if everyone in the group gives a lot, we’ll all end up with more. But they’re also thinking, is it worth the risk? Or do they take the guaranteed? |
| Perhaps they were considering whether or not the others would contribute. It is only worth contributing if others do, so predicting the actions of others is a crucial part in the decision making process. |
| The might have contributed as well because they would be thinking that nobody is going to contribute if they don’t. I think the game would go be better if everyone contribute |
| Likely they’re weighing if they are personally willing to contribute to a larger whole, and if they feel generous. They may also be using their everyday experiences of people to determine if they feel that people will also contribute or not. |
| I think they were doing quite a bit of math, trying to figure out how various combinations of contributions to the pot from themselves and the others would tally up in the end. They were trying to maximize the possible outcomes for themselves and not about rewarding others. |
| I think they were probably just thinking about how the could maximize their own profit. I dont think people would be trusting enough to put there money into the community pot. |
| The best scenario for everyone is for each participant to contribute the maximum to the pot, and I think the other participants will realize that. In the worst-case scenario where you are the only contributor, the risk is not only the loss of a bonus, but also the feeling of being a fool. The loss of bonus is minor; the perceived blow to identity is more severe. There may also be participants who enjoy the thought of ‘getting one over’ on the others, even though they’re strangers. I think an individual’s decision will come down to how resilient their personal sense of identity is to the potential injury of feeling gullible. |
| All I can do is compare myself to the others. Giving half of what was offered seems to be a fair compromise. Due to my current situation, I would rather give away part of it to assure I still have something left. |
| I think most of the group members will keep some of the money in their private pot. They will contribute a smaller amount to the group pot, but not as much as their own private pot. |
| I think most of the participants decided to contribute to the collective pot because of the chances of getting a bigger payout, compared to holding the money back. |
| Well it’s risk vs. reward. If no one else contributes, you lose the most. If no one contributes, no one gets anything. If everyone contributes, you can get quite a bit. |
| I imagine it’s going to be about 50/50 cooperative and greedy. (probably mostly greedy in the grand scheme). It’s a fair assumption given that I’m cooperating, that means one other member of this group has to cooperate as well for my estimate to work out. However, I imagine, due to the example about giving all $10, they’ll think that’s a bad idea, because that scenario turned out quite bad. What made me contribute so much is the idea that I do believe it’s quite unlikely to get our group randomly picked, so I don’t really care about this bonus money anyway, but I’m rather sure others would not think the same, however. |
| I think they were thinking how can I make the most for myself but yet help others. They might want not be risk takers and bet conservatively. I think everybody wanted to make the most but not be too risky with the amount. |
| I believe that most will decide what amount is strategically best to contribute to maximize profit. I suspect at least one player will decide to keep all for themselves. |
| I feel the other players may likely feel the same as I do. I feel that if I keep all $10 and do not contribute, that I will at least have $10 in my private pot whether our team is picked as the winning team or not. I like to play it safe and rarely take chances. |
| They were thinking about other people and what they might decide to do. They were also thinking about what is very much in their own self interest and how to maximize it. |
| The greatest return on everyone’s investment can only be realized if everyone gives $10. This game ignores the fact that I started with nothing and I have nothing to lose. The $10 dollars does not belong to me and it is very unlikely that my group will be chosen. This experiment only works with real money that belongs to each member. “Easy come, easy go.” |
| They wanted to hope for everyone contributing. If everyone gave a good amount we could stand to make a lot of money. Since it is doubled. I would assume people would be motivated to do this since they would be making a lot of money. |