Description
Built with Task Builder 1
Three trial runs for Game 1 before participants proceed to the main part of Game 1 (i.e., 12 rounds).
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Adapted version of the door game
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103085
Built with Task Builder 1
This game is an adaptation of the ‘door game’ (Van der Biest et al., 2020), designed to manipulate the overall trustworthiness of the pseudo player by adjusting the frequency of correct (trustworthy condition) and incorrect (untrustworthy condition) advice given. The pseudo player is said to have insider knowledge about which one of three differently coloured doors is going to be rewarded if selected, and had the opportunity to pass on this information to the participant via a chat box. After receiving this information from the pseudo player, participants have to select one of the three doors. Depending on the door they chose, they would either be rewarded with +10 game credits, punished with -10 game credits, or neither rewarded nor punished with +/- 0 game credits. Participants received feedback about the outcome (i.e., whether they earned, lost, or neither earned nor lost credits) after each round. The order of reward and punishment is randomised for participants in the untrustworthy condition. The goal of the game is to collect as many credits as possible. Participants start with 100 game credits in their account, and all earned game credits are added to their account. Participants play 12 rounds of the door game followed by a decision on how much of the profit (i.e., the 100 game credits they started with were deducted) they would give to the pseudo player (see GAME 1 INSTRUCTIONS for participant instructions).
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Adapted version of the door game
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103085
Built with Task Builder 1
To ensure that participants fully understand the game instructions of game 1, they are asked to answer a total of five control questions.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
Instructions for Game 1.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 1
The second game is designed to measure participants’ risk-taking behaviour in a collaborative game. The goal of the game is to earn as many credits as possible. This time, roles are reversed, and the participant is placed in the leading role and instructed to guide the pseudo player. Participants guide the other player through a virtual world by deciding whether the player should takes a low-risk or high-risk route. The pseudo player is tasked with collecting a token (a star) to complete each level. The low-risk route involves few en-route obstacles making it relatively easy for the pseudo player to reach the star. If the pseudo player successfully collects the star, both players receive a total of 5 game credits. In comparison, the high-risk route involves multiple obstacles that hinder the pseudo player from collecting the star. Additionally, the high-risk route requires a minimum investment of 10 game credits from the participant, which triples if the pseudo player successfully collects the star. In the high-risk route, the earned credits are received only by the pseudo player who ostensibly has the option to give some portion of these credits back to the participant upon completion of the game. Hence, the high-risk route constitutes a risk of interpersonal nature; the participant could be better off opting for the low-risk route if they do not trust their teammate to give credits back to them at the end of the game. Participants play 12 rounds of this game in total, with credits accruing in each round. Initial pilot testing of the risk-taking game revealed that participants had doubts about the existence of the other player, largely due to their apparently error-free performance. Thus, to bolster the believability of the pseudo player, we included ‘penalty’ rounds, where the pseudo player fails to collect the star and consequently loses a life. Participants are told that for each life lost, each player would receive 10 penalty points, which are collected throughout the game and deducted from the final score at the end (see GAME 2 INSTRUCTIONS for participant instructions).
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 1
Three trial runs for game 2 before proceeding to the main part of Game 2 (i.e., 12 rounds).
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 1
To ensure participants understand the instructions for game 2, they are asked a total of six control questions.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
Game 2 Instructions.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
Covering scales on rapport (Duke et al., 2018), trust propensity (Mayer & Davis, 1999), impulsiveness (Steinberg et al., 2013), motivation (Duke et al., 2018), a funnel debriefing (Bernstein et al., 2016), and demographics.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Rapport and motivation scale
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000147
Trust propensity scale
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
Impulsivity scale
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030550
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
Scales on trustworthiness and willingness to trust.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Trustworthiness scale
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
Built with Task Builder 1
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 1
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 1
Fully open! Access by URL and searchable from the Open Materials search page
