Abstract

We examined how people think about how things could have turned out differently after they made a decision to cooperate or not in three social interactions: the Prisoner’s dilemma (Experiment 1), the Stag Hunt dilemma (Experiment 2), and the Chicken game (Experiment 3). We found that participants who took part in the game imagined the outcome would have been different if a different decision had been made by the other player, not themselves; they did so whether the outcome was good or bad for them, their own choice had been to cooperate or not, and the other player’s choice had been to cooperate or not. Participants who only read about a fictional protagonist’s game imagined changes outside the protagonist’s control (such as the other player’s decision) after a good outcome but within the protagonist’s control (such as the protagonist’s decision) after a bad outcome. The implications for theories of counterfactual thinking and moral decision-making are discussed.

摘要

我们研究了人们在三种社交互动中做出合作与否决定后如何看待事情的不同结果：囚徒困境（实验 1）、猎鹿困境（实验 2）和小鸡博弈（实验3）。我们发现，参与游戏的参与者认为，如果其他玩家做出不同的决定，而不是他们自己，结果会有所不同；不管结果是好是坏，他们都这样做了，他们自己的选择是合作与否，而对方玩家的选择是合作与否。只阅读虚构主角游戏的参与者想象在一个好的结果之后出现主角无法控制的变化（例如其他玩家的决定），但在一个糟糕的结果之后在主角的控制范围内（例如主角的决定）。讨论了对反事实思维和道德决策理论的影响。