IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpaper/25.06.html

How ex-ante information design affects cognitive conflict and cooperation depending on agents’ tendency to cooperate: a mouse tracking study

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Gómez Ruiz

    (Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Natalia Jiménez-Jiménez

    (Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Maria Jesús Sánchez-Expósito

    (Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

Abstract

This study investigates how the design of ex-ante information (given before decisions are taken) affects the cooperative decisions made by team members, depending on their inclination to cooperate. Also analyzed is the effect of this information on cognitive conflict (when an agent internally experiences contrary demands or opposing forces). Moreover, the relationship between cognitive conflict and cooperation is explored. We design an experiment in which participants play 15 rounds, in pairs, of three social dilemmas. The ex-ante information is manipulated in three different ways: displaying only private and individual earnings (the “I” frame); displaying the joint profits (the “We” frame); and displaying both types of information (the “I&We” frame). Mouse movements are tracked using a specific software. Individual inclinations to cooperate are measured using the Honesty-Humility (HH) dimension of the HEXACO personality model. The agents are classified as HH_highs (high tendency to cooperate) and HH_lows (low tendency to cooperate). We measure the cooperation level as the percentage of cooperative decisions and the cognitive conflict level based on the curvature of mouse movements. Ex-ante information design is not found to affect cooperation levels in the case of HH_highs but does affect cognitive conflict levels. The opposite is observed for HH_lows. The main result is therefore that the cooperation of non-cooperative agents can be increased through framing (“I&We” being the best framing). No effect on cognitive conflict is found for HH_lows. Finally, a relationship between cognitive conflict and cooperative decisions for HH_highs is only observed in the case of the “I&We” frame.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Gómez Ruiz & Natalia Jiménez-Jiménez & Maria Jesús Sánchez-Expósito, 2025. "How ex-ante information design affects cognitive conflict and cooperation depending on agents’ tendency to cooperate: a mouse tracking study," Working Papers 25.06, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:25.06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wps/econ2506.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    2. Laura Gomez-Ruiz & María J. Sánchez-Expósito, 2020. "The Impact of Team Identity and Gender on Free-Riding Responses to Fear and Cooperation Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    4. Eskenazi, Philip I. & Hartmann, Frank G.H. & Rietdijk, Wim J.R., 2016. "Why controllers compromise on their fiduciary duties: EEG evidence on the role of the human mirror neuron system," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 41-50.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:740-749 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2010. "Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public good experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 689-702, March.
    7. Ana M. Franco-Watkins & Joseph G. Johnson, 2011. "Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mousetracing methods," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 740-749, December.
    8. R. Cookson, 2000. "Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 55-79, June.
    9. Franco-Watkins, Ana M. & Johnson, Joseph G., 2011. "Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(8), pages 740-749, December.
    10. Pascal J. Kieslich & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2014. "Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 510-522, November.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:510-522 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kieslich, Pascal J. & Hilbig, Benjamin E., 2014. "Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 510-522, November.
    13. Sainty, Barbara, 1999. "Achieving greater cooperation in a noisy prisoner's dilemma: an experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 421-435, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bartke, Simon & Bosworth, Steven J. & Snower, Dennis & Chierchia, Gabriele, 2016. "The influence of induced care and anger motives on behavior, beliefs and perceptions in a public goods game," Kiel Working Papers 2054, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Sebastian J. Goerg & David Rand & Gari Walkowitz, 2020. "Framing effects in the prisoner’s dilemma but not in the dictator game," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2009. "Institution design in social dilemmas: How to design if you must?," MPRA Paper 16922, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Laura Gomez-Ruiz & María J. Sánchez-Expósito, 2020. "The Impact of Team Identity and Gender on Free-Riding Responses to Fear and Cooperation Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2018. "Belief Heterogeneity and the Restart Effect in a Public Goods Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Almeida, Sergio, 2023. "Punishment credibility and cooperation in public good games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    7. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gaechter, 2008. "Heterogeneous Social Preferences And The Dynamics Of Free Riding In Public Good Experiments," Discussion Papers 2008-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    9. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountability: Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Good Games," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100512, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Konow, James & Nyborg, Karine, 2017. "Framing in a threshold public goods experiment with heterogeneous endowments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 99-110.
    11. Fehr, Dietmar & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "Gossip and the efficiency of interactions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 448-460.
    12. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    13. Boosey, Luke A., 2017. "Conditional cooperation in network public goods experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 108-116.
    14. Martin G. Kocher & Peter Martinsson & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth & Conny E. Wollbrant, 2017. "Strong, bold, and kind: self-control and cooperation in social dilemmas," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 44-69, March.
    15. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    16. Boosey, Luke & Mark Isaac, R., 2016. "Asymmetric network monitoring and punishment in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 26-41.
    17. Tünde Paál & Tamás Bereczkei, 2015. "Punishment as a Means of Competition: Implications for Strong Reciprocity Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Haucap, Justus & Heldman, Christina & Rau, Holger A., 2024. "Gender and cooperation in the presence of negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 148-169.
    19. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gächter, Simon & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike, 2011. "The framing of games and the psychology of play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 459-478.
    20. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A. & Konrad, Kai A., 2018. "Deception under time pressure: Conscious decision or a problem of awareness?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-42.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:25.06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publicación Digital - UPO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupoes.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.