The influence of personality on HE students’ confidence in their academic abilities

Students’ confidence in their academic abilities, measured with the Individual Learning Profile (ILP) scale, was examined in relation to their personality traits and grades. To validate the ILP, in Study 1, factor analysis of data from 3003 students extracted six factors (Reading and Writing, Hard IT, Numeracy, Time Management, Speaking, and Easy IT) with good internal reliability. Subsequently, in Study 2, 130 students completed the refined ILP, and scales measuring the Big Five, Perfectionism, Anxiety, and Self-Esteem. Between 10% and 31% of the variance in four ILP factors, but not IT skills, could be predicted by personality traits, but Self-Esteem and Anxiety were not influential. Higher conscientiousness and openness positively predicted higher confidence in reading and writing, while agreeableness and three aspects of perfectionism predicted confidence in numeracy skills. Being introverted and female were predictive of lower confidence in speaking, as were low conscientiousness and the perfectionistic desire to be organised. Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and the perfectionistic desire to be organised were strong predictors of confidence in time-management skills, which in turn predicted first-year GPA. The reliability of the ILP was examined over the course of a one-year interval.     

Dynamic probability of reinforcement for cooperation: Random game termination in the centipede game

Experimental games have previously been used to study principles of human interaction. Many such games are characterized by iterated or repeated designs that model dynamic relationships, including reciprocal cooperation. To enable the study of infinite game repetitions and to avoid endgame effects of lower cooperation toward the final game round, investigators have introduced random termination rules. This study extends previous research that has focused narrowly on repeated Prisoner's Dilemma games by conducting a controlled experiment of two‐player, random termination Centipede games involving probabilistic reinforcement and characterized by the longest decision sequences reported in the empirical literature to date (24 decision nodes). Specifically, we assessed mean exit points and cooperation rates, and compared the effects of four different termination rules: no random game termination, random game termination with constant termination probability, random game termination with increasing termination probability, and random game termination with decreasing termination probability. We found that although mean exit points were lower for games with shorter expected game lengths, the subjects' cooperativeness was significantly reduced only in the most extreme condition with decreasing computer termination probability and an expected game length of two decision nodes.     

They Might Be a Liar But They’re My Liar: Source Evaluation and the Prevalence of Misinformation

Even if people acknowledge that misinformation is incorrect after a correction has been presented, their feelings towards the source of the misinformation can remain unchanged. The current study investigated whether participants reduce their support of Republican and Democratic politicians when the prevalence of misinformation disseminated by the politicians appears to be high in comparison to the prevalence of their factual statements. We presented U.S. participants either with (1) equal numbers of false and factual statements from political candidates or (2) disproportionately more false than factual statements. Participants received fact-checks as to whether items were true or false, then rerated both their belief in the statements as well as their feelings towards the candidate. Results indicated that when corrected misinformation was presented alongside equal presentations of affirmed factual statements, participants reduced their belief in the misinformation but did not reduce their feelings towards the politician. However, if there was considerably more misinformation retracted than factual statements affirmed, feelings towards both Republican and Democratic figures were reduced—although the observed effect size was extremely small.     

To walk in their shoes: Recognising the expression of empathy as a research reality

This paper makes an argument for recognising empathy as a research reality and explores its presence in the two development research fieldwork sites of Bosnia–Herzegovina and Nicaragua in 2007 and 2008. In both countries qualitative methods were used in a context of heightened politicisation and cross-cultural research in a variety of diverse political and geographical landscapes. Development research in particular can be motivated by a sense of injustice and is often entwined with feelings of anger, guilt, solidarity, outrage and a sense of purpose. In addition, the use of qualitative methods tends to invoke empathy in order to establish relationships of trust and openness between researcher and participant. There is an assumption, however, that the recognition and utilisation of empathy encroaches on the neutrality of the researcher. This paper challenges this belief and suggests that empathy is a valuable part of knowledge production in research. We conclude that empathy is generated through a relational process between those present in a research moment, in these cases a researcher, interpreter and participant/s. It shapes the research moment, affects understanding of the research moment, and needs to be represented in written analysis as illuminating of context and data.     

Team reasoning and collective rationality: piercing the veil of obviousness

The experiments reported in our target article provide strong evidence of collective utility maximization, and the findings suggest that team reasoning should now be included among the social value orientations used in cognitive and social psychology. Evidential decision theory offers a possible alternative explanation for our results but fails to predict intuitively compelling strategy choices in simple games with asymmetric team-reasoning outcomes. Although many of our experimental participants evidently used team reasoning, some appear to have ignored the other players' expected strategy choices and used lower-level, nonstrategic forms of reasoning. Standard payoff transformations cannot explain the experimental findings, nor team reasoning in general, without an unrealistic assumption that players invariably reason nonstrategically.     

Size doesn't really matter: ambiguity aversion in Ellsberg urns with few balls

When attempting to draw a ball of a specified color either from an urn containing 50 red balls and 50 black balls or from an urn containing an unknown ratio of 100 red and black balls, a majority of decision makers prefer the known-risk urn, and this ambiguity aversion effect violates expected utility theory. In an experimental investigation of the effect of urn size on ambiguity aversion, 149 participants showed similar levels of aversion when choosing from urns containing 2, 10, or 100 balls. The occurrence of a substantial and significant ambiguity aversion effect even in the smallest urn suggests that influential theoretical interpretations of ambiguity aversion may need to be reconsidered.     

Personality differences in high risk sports amateurs and instructors

This study investigated the personality differences of 21 amateurs and 20 instructors who participated in the high risk sports of skydiving, hang-gliding, paragliding, scuba diving, microlighting, and rock climbing, versus those who did not. 38 men and 28 women (M age=32.6 yr., SD= 10.0) were assessed using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, the General Health Questionnaire, the Generalised Self-efficacy Scale, and a Type A/B personality measure. Instructors and Amateurs scored significantly higher on Extroversion and lower on Neuroticism than Nonparticipants; however, they differed from each other on the General Health Questionnaire and Type A/B personality scores. Amateurs scored significantly higher on Psychoticism and Self-efficacy than Instructors and Nonparticipants. In conclusion, these test scores suggest that people who are attracted to high risk sports tend to be at the extroverted and emotionally stable end of the scale, with a tendency to exhibit Type A characteristics; however, Instructors' scores on Psychoticism and Self-efficacy are more akin to those of Nonparticipants.     

Exploring cooperation and competition in the Centipede game through verbal protocol analysis

The Centipede game is an abstract model of reciprocal relationships in which two individuals alternate in helping each other at relatively small personal cost. Whereas mutual cooperation can benefit both individuals in the long run, a paradoxical but logically compelling backward induction argument suggests that cooperation is irrational. Empirical studies have reported reliable deviations from the non‐cooperative backward induction solution, but their exclusively quantitative methods allow only a limited range of predefined motives to be explored. Our study uses verbal (‘think aloud’) protocols and qualitative data analysis to identify motives for cooperation in the Centipede game. The results provide little evidence for sophisticated backward induction reasoning. Instead, a wide range of motives emerged, their relative saliences varying according to the stage of the game. Activity bias affected decisions mainly at the beginning of the game, whereas cooperative and altruistic social value orientations most frequently accounted for cooperation towards its natural end.     

Cooperation in repeated interactions: A systematic review of Centipede game experiments, 1992–2016

Cooperation is a fundamental form of social interaction, and turn-taking reciprocity one of its most familiar manifestations. The Centipede game provides a formal model of such alternating reciprocal cooperation, but a backward induction (BI) argument appears to prove logically that instrumentally rational players would never cooperate in this way. A systematic review of experimental research reveals that human decision makers cooperate frequently in this game, except under certain extreme conditions. Several game, situational, and individual difference variables have been investigated for their influence on cooperation. The most influential are aspects of the payoff function (especially the social gain from cooperation and the risk associated with a cooperative move), the number of players, repetitions of the game, group vs. individual decisions, and players’ social value orientations (SVOs). Our review of experimental evidence suggests that other-regarding preferences, including prosocial behavioural dispositions and collective rationality, provide the most powerful explanation for cooperation.