We provide here the questionnaires and tasks used for the the three experiments reported in the manuscript "Social overshadowing: Revisiting cue-competition in social interactions".
These materials were used to examine whether overshadowing, a well-established cue-competition phenomenon, impacts learning in social contexts. For this, we used an adaptation of the iterated Trust Game in which participants had to learn the cooperative behaviours of unfamiliar game partners presented either alone or within a pair.
We used a combination of questionnaires and tasks for stimuli presentation and data collection. The general structure of the experiments was as follows: i. consent, ii. main task (baseline, learning and test phases), iii. demographics data, and iv. dismissal.
We kindly ask researchers who wish to use these materials to refer to our work using the following citation:
Telga, Alcalá, Heyes, & Urcelay (2022). Social overshadowing: Revisiting cue-competition in social interactions. [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Built with Experiment
The main task of Experiment 1 comprises three phases: baseline, learning, and transfer. To represent participants' game partners in these three phases, we used 12 photographs from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015).
In the baseline, we collected participants' spontaneous likelihood to cooperate with their game partners. Participants were individually presented with the photograph of each one of their partners and had to indicate how likely they were to cooeprate with them using a horizontal slider ranging from 0 (Very Unlikely) to 100 (Very Likely).
In the learning phase, we examine participants' learning of the cooperative behaviours of their partners across trials, in an adaptation of the Trust Game loosely based on Telga et al., (2018). At the beginning of each trial, participants virtually received £1 and had to decide whether to cooperate with the partner or pair of partners of the round by pressing the ‘1’ key to cooperate the ‘0’ key to not cooperate. If they cooperated, the partner or pair of partners in this round would ostensibly receive the initial amount multiplied by 5 (i.e., £5) and decide whether to either give £2.50 back to the participant (i.e., reciprocate) or to keep all the money (i.e., defect). If, in contrast, participants decided not to cooperate, they would keep the initial £1 and the partner(s) would receive nothing. The learning phase consisted of 10 presentations of 12 cooperative and non-cooperative partners presented either alone or in a pair, for a total of 160 trials.
In the test phase, we assess participants' likelihood to cooperate with each one of their partners on the basis of what their experience from the learning phase. This phase was, therefore, very similar to the baseline phase, except for the insctructions displayed.
After the test phase, we collected participants' demographics information and provide them with a short debriefing.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Face database
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
Trust Game
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01008
Built with Experiment
Experiment 2 was very similar to Experiment 1, except that we added two mixed-gender pairs of partners, for a total of 16 partners. We used 16 photographs from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015) to represent the game partners.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Experiment
Experiment 3 was very similar to Experiment 1, except that we introduced a between-group manipulation of the instructions provided to the participants. Specifically, in one experimental group (i.e., non-ambiguous group), participants were told that when a pair of partners decided to cooperate (defect), both of them had agreed and therefore both were cooperative (noncooperative). In the other group (i.e., ambiguous group), participants were told that when a pair of partners made a decision to either cooperate (defect), it means that either one of them or both of them make the final call, and therefore either one of them or both are cooperative (noncooperative). After the instructions, we introduced a manipulation check to ensure that participants knew how decisions were made within a pair. Participants who failed this check re-read the instructions until they correctly responded all questions.
Restricted! Access by URL only
