行为博弈与社会交换

行为博弈与社会交换看似两个毫无关联的现象和研究领域,却有着内在的、实质性的联系。行为博弈也是一种社会交换或以社会交换为机制,社会交换则表现为一种行为博弈或有着内在的博弈性质。行为博弈与社会交换互为表里、互为机制、水乳交融,行为博弈是社会交换的行为博弈,社会交换是行为博弈的社会交换。以行为博弈的眼光来看待社会交换或以社会交换的意识来研究行为博弈,跨领域的研究洞视,各自互为对方启动了一方别开生面的研究天地,为枯燥乏味的传统博弈研究和死水微澜的社会交换领域凭添了一丝新鲜气息。     

Everything Else Being Equal: A Modal Logic for <Emphasis Type="Italic">Ceteris Paribus</Emphasis> Preferences

This paper presents a new modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences understood in the sense of “all other things being equal”. This reading goes back to the seminal work of Von Wright in the early 1960’s and has returned in computer science in the 1990’s and in more abstract “dependency logics” today. We show how it differs from ceteris paribus as “all other things being normal”, which is used in contexts with preference defeaters. We provide a semantic analysis and several completeness theorems. We show how our system links up with Von Wright’s work, and how it applies to game-theoretic solution concepts, to agenda setting in investigation, and to preference change. We finally consider its relation with infinitary modal logics.     

Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafeteria: An extension of the Good Behavior Game

Non-classroom settings are often the most violence-prone areas within a school. This study investigated the impact of an interdependent group contingency on the disruptive behaviors of students in grades K-6 in an urban school cafeteria. Nine female noontime aides and National School and Community Corps staff members implemented the Lunchroom Behavior Game (LBG), a modification of the Good Behavior Game (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969), within a multiple-baseline design across three lunch periods. Results showed a decrease in the level of disruptive behaviors following the implementation of the LBG in each lunch period and a decreasing trend for two of the three lunch periods. Discussion focuses on the use of the LBG in preventing antisocial behavior and role expansion for school psychologists interested in promoting school-based prevention strategies.     

Using the Step it UP! Game to increase physical activity during physical-education classes

The Step it UP! Game is an interdependent group reinforcement contingency based on the Good Behavior Game. We evaluated the effects of the Step it UP! Game on the number of steps taken by 3rd-grade students during physical-education (PE) classes at a local public elementary school. We divided the class into 2 teams and awarded a “Step it UP! Champ” badge to the members of the team with the highest mean step totals at the end of each game. We used a reversal design to compare the mean number of steps taken while playing the game and during regular PE classes. Overall, participants took more steps while playing the game than they did during class periods without the game. When given the opportunity to choose playing the Step it UP! Game or having regular PE class during a follow-up session, 16 of 18 participants voted to play the game.     

Honesty-humility and dictator and ultimatum game-giving in children

Fairness can be affected by personality traits, situational factors, and person-situation interactions. Based on studies with adult samples, the present study investigated elementary school children’s (N = 164) social behavior in versions of the Dictator and the Ultimatum Game with actual incentives. Importantly, the Ultimatum, but not the Dictator Game includes the fear of retaliation for unfair allocation offers. The results show predictive power of the situation and the personality dimension Honesty-Humility, but not their interaction. Children offered more candies in the Ultimatum Game than in the Dictator Game, and, in general, children higher in Honesty-Humility offered more candies than children lower in Honesty-Humility.     

拒富护穷：提议方贫富身份对公平关注的影响

通过2个系列实验探讨了提议方贫富身份对公平关注的影响以及社会实体公平感作为影响来源的可能作用。通过操纵提议方的贫富身份,实验1发现人们倾向于接受穷人提议方的非公平提议,进而证实贫富身份能够影响公平关注。实验2引入有利不公平转换和有利不公平转换任务,结果发现：在有利不公平条件下,人们更容易接受富人的提议,并且富人的有利不公平转换率显著低于穷人,从而确认了社会实体公平感的存在及其作用。这些结果初步证实提议方贫富身份会影响公平关注,社会实体公平感是这一影响的来源。     

Expanding the Political Psychology Toolkit: The Potential of Discursive Psychology for Understanding Contentious Political Debate at a Grassroots Level

In its location at the intersection of political science and psychology, political psychology draws on many of the research techniques of both disciplines in its exploration of power, voting behavior, leadership, attitudes, and values. One hitherto relatively underutilized approach for understanding public policy debate is discursive psychology (DP). Applying this perspective to a contentious policy issue in Australia, we seek to demonstrate that this approach can add richness and depth to our understanding of how ordinary citizens engage in public policy debates. We suggest that this type of analysis can augment insights obtained from more traditional methods—such as focus groups, experimental approaches, and opinion polling—by analyzing how debates are constructed and presented at the grassroots level. This research is innovative in two ways. First, it applies a rigorous, empirical research approach to an area in which it has not previously been used: the study of public policy issues. Second, rather than analyzing the communicative practices of political leaders, we consider the rhetorical arguments made by ordinary citizens in their engagement with political issues and how they negotiate what counts as evidence. This can provide insights into how public debate can be conducted more productively and respectfully.     

Culture of honour theory and social anxiety: Cross-regional and sex differences in relationships among honour-concerns,social anxiety and reactive aggression

According to the Appraisal-Tendency Framework (Han, Lerner, & Keltner, 2007), certainty-associated emotions increase risk taking compared with uncertainty-associated emotions. To date, this general effect has only been shown in static judgement and decision-making paradigms; therefore, the present study tested the effect of certainty on risk taking in a sequential decision-making task. We hypothesised that the effect would be reversed due to the kind of processing involved, as certainty is considered to encourage heuristic processing that takes into account the emotional cues arising from previous decisions, whereas uncertainty leads to more systematic processing. One hundred and one female participants were induced to feel one of three emotions (film clips) before performing a decision-making task involving risk (Game of Dice Task; Brand et al., 2005). As expected, the angry and happy participants (certainty-associated emotions) were more likely than the fearful participants (uncertainty-associated emotion) to make safe decisions (vs. risky decisions).     

Subjective randomization in one-and two-person games

Following the study by Rapoport and Budescu (1992), two experiments are reported whose main purpose is to compare the generation of random sequences in one- and two-person games. The first experiment addresses the generation of trinary series in two-person zerosum games with asymmetric players. The second examines the generation of binary series using a between-subjects design, and compares the cognitive processes operating in one- and two-person games. Although both types of games result in similar deviations from randomness, they seem to induce qualitatively different cognitive processes.     

Game Semantics for the Lambek-Calculus: Capturing Directionality and the Absence of Structural Rules

In this paper, we propose a game semantics for the (associative) Lambek calculus. Compared to the implicational fragment of intuitionistic propositional calculus, the semantics deals with two features of the logic: absence of structural rules, as well as directionality of implication. We investigate the impact of these variations of the logic on its game semantics. Presented by Wojciech Buszkowski