It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
People have different preferences for what they allocate for themselves and what they allocate to others in social dilemmas. These differences result from contextual reasons, intrinsic values, and social expectations. What is still an area of debate is whether these differences can be estimated from differences in each individual’s deliberation process. In this work, we analyse the participants’ reaction times in three different experiments of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma with the Drift Diffusion Model, which links response times to the perceived difficulty of the decision task, the rate of accumulation of information (deliberation), and the intuitive attitudes towards the choices. The correlation between these results and the attitude of the participants towards the allocation of resources is then determined. We observe that individuals who allocated resources equally are correlated with more deliberation than highly cooperative or highly defective participants, who accumulate evidence more quickly to reach a decision. Also, the evidence collection is faster in fixed neighbour settings than in shuffled ones. Consequently, fast decisions do not distinguish cooperators from defectors in these experiments, but appear to separate those that are more reactive to the behaviour of others from those that act categorically.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 AI Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.8767.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2290 8069)
2 AI Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.8767.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2290 8069); MLG, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.4989.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2348 0746); UC Berkeley, Center for Human-Compatible AI, Berkeley, USA (GRID:grid.47840.3f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2181 7878); Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, FARI Institute, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.4989.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2348 0746)
3 Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy (GRID:grid.11469.3b) (ISNI:0000 0000 9780 0901)
4 AI Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.8767.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2290 8069); MLG, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.4989.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2348 0746)