Looking for loss in all the wrong places: loss avoidance does not explain cheater detection
Fiddick, Laurence, and Rutherford, M.D. (2006) Looking for loss in all the wrong places: loss avoidance does not explain cheater detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27 (2006). pp. 417-432.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav...
The ability to detect cheaters has been proposed as an adaptive design feature of psychological adaptations for cooperation. This proposal has been tested with studies on the Wason selection task, which purportedly demonstrate that humans possess a specific competence for detecting cheaters in cooperative interactions. An alternative set of theories suggests that people are not looking for cheaters per se, but are looking for losses in an effort to maximize their utility. In previous investigations of cheater detection, cheating has been confounded with someone suffering a loss. We sought to test rival accounts of cheater detection by devising versions of the selection task in which cheating is unconfounded with losses. The results suggest that people are competent at detecting cheaters even when no losses are involved, lending support to the view that cheater detection is a specific design feature of psychological adaptations for cooperation.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|Keywords:||cooperation; cheating; deontic reasoning; subjective expected utility; decision making; losses; social contracts; threats|
|FoR Codes:||17 PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES > 1701 Psychology > 170199 Psychology not elsewhere classified @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||97 EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE > 970117 Expanding Knowledge in Psychology and Cognitive Sciences @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||19 Nov 2009 14:15|
|Last Modified:||18 Oct 2013 00:33|
Last 12 Months: 0
|Citation Counts with External Providers:|
Repository Staff Only: item control page